AN BORD PLEANÁLA ORAL HEARING
DECEMBER 2019
CONTENTS An Bord Pleanála Oral Hearing (December 2019)
1. ABP Agenda 2. Dublin Port Company Witness Statements i. Proposed Development ii. Project Rational & Associated Issues iii. Planning Policy iv. EIAR Issues v. Traffic & Transportation vi. Combined Witness Statement - Coastal Processes, Flood Risk, Soils Geology & Hydrogeology vii. Air Quality & Climate viii. Combined Witness Statement - Ecology (EIA) ix. Habitats Directive Appraisals x. Landscape & Visual xi. Combined Witness Statement – Cultural Heritage xii. Navigation xiii. Outline Legal Submissions
Appendix 1: Submissions to An Bord Pleanála
1. An Bord Pleanála Oral Hearing Agenda
Oral Hearing Agenda ABP-304888-19
Development MP2 Project Dublin Port Date Monday, 16th December, 2019 Start Time 10:00am Location An Bord Pleanála, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin 1
Day 1
Period Topic
10.00-10.15 Opening of oral hearing by Inspector
Applicant 10.15-13.15 o Summary of proposed development (max 15 minutes) o Applicant Submission
13.15-14.15 Break
14.15-15.15 Applicant - Submission Continued 15.15-15.30 Planning Authority
Observers Submissions and Questions (within same block of time) 15.45-15.55 1. Clontarf Residents Association 16.00-16.20 2. Cllr. Donna Cooney 16.25-16.55 3. Docklands Business Forum
Closing Submissions (reverse order)
Formal closing of hearing by inspector
Oral Hearing Agenda ABP-304888-19 Page 1 of 2 Notes:
It is envisaged that the Oral Hearing will conclude on Monday 16th December 2019 but may continue into a second day (Tuesday 17th December) if required.
The order of appearance for the oral hearing is set out in the agenda, along with a timetable and a time for each participant. Please note that this slot is for making submissions and asking questions.
All written submissions already received will be considered by the inspector and the Board. Submissions previously made in writing should not be reiterated at the oral hearing.
If you intend to provide written copies of your presentations these can only be accepted if there are copies available for all the participants at the hearing. Three copies of any written documentation should also be submitted for the Board file.
Closing Submissions should be no longer than 5 minutes per participant with no new or legal matters raised.
On completion of the oral hearing, the inspector will prepare a report and recommendation on the case for the Board. The decision to grant or refuse permission will be made by the Board.
If you or a member of your group have any access requirements, please contact he ca e officer or An Bord Plean la Acce Officer as soon as possible so that we may facilitate you in attending the oral hearing.
Oral Hearing Agenda ABP-304888-19 Page 2 of 2 2. Dublin Port Company Witness Statements i. Proposed Development ii. Project Rational & Associated Issues iii. Planning Policy iv. EIAR Issues v. Traffic & Transportation vi. Combined Witness Statement - Coastal Processes, Flood Risk, Soils Geology & Hydrogeology vii. Air Quality & Climate viii. Combined Witness Statement - Ecology (EIA) ix. Habitats Directive Appraisals x. Landscape & Visual xi. Combined Witness Statement – Cultural Heritage xii. Navigation xiii. Outline Legal Submissions
A E C A C E DE E E
A CA A B D EA A
( E . . AB .304888-19)
A EA
DUBLIN PORT
MP2
PROJECT
E E A ADA C
ED DE E E
Dublin Port MP2 Project
Oral Hearing Presentation Notes 1 th December 201
Adam Cronin – Design Team Project Manager
Slide Notes 1 Cover Slide Good morning Inspector, ladies & gentlemen. My name is Adam Cronin. I am the Director of Marine at ByrneLooby Consulting Engineers and the Design Team Project Manager for Dublin Ports MP2 Project.
I am going to give a short presentation on the MP2 Project, outlining the works proposed and the programme for the development.
2 Existing DPC Site This slide depicts the main Dublin Port estate and shows key reference points for context such as Clontarf, East Link Bridge, Alexandra Basin etc. Vessels arriving to and departing from the various berths in Dublin Port navigate along the River Liffey and exit the port between North Bull Island and the South Wall to the east of the image.
MP2 Project Planning Boundary (Aerial Map) The red line shown overlain onto the aerial map of Dublin Port shows the planning boundary for the MP2 Project planning application. All works for which consent is being sought under this application are contained fully within the red line.
MP2 Project Planning Boundary (Ordnance Survey Map) The red line shown overlain onto the OS map of Dublin Port shows the planning boundary for the planning application.
Proposed Development This plan shows the proposed development for the MP2 Project works.
A brief description of the proposed works is as follows: L1: Northern Access Road L2: Eastern Access Road L : Unified Ferry Terminal Yard L : Heritage Installation M1: Berth 2 M2: Berth M : Channel Widening Works M : Jetty Road M : Oil Berth M : Berth 0A M : Dredging of Berth 0A
1
Berth 2 The Berth 2 structure is already permitted under PL2 N PA00 (ABR) but not developed. This application seeks to make minor modifications to the previously consented works comprising of:
(1) Modifications to the eastern end of Berth (2) Modifications to eastern end of consented Berth 2. ( ) Rotation of the berth by degrees clockwise.
Berth 2 will be able to accommodate RoRo vessels up to 2 0m long.
Berth This is a proposed new berth. It is comprised of an open deck structure at the western end and a piled dolphin structure to the east. The berth will accommodate RoRo vessels up to 2 0m long and the overall structure length is 0 m. Other works associated with this berth include; installation of a scour protection mattress to the north of the berth, a propeller wash protection structure, localised dredging and vehicle access ramp/linkspan structure.
Photomontages Photomontages of the proposed Berth from the South Wall and Bull Wall show the type of structure proposed, which is predominantly a series of piled dolphins which act as a berthing face for the vessels. The scour protection mattress is located entirely on the seabed.
Berth 0A It is proposed to extend the existing berth 0A by 12 m, giving a total berth length of approximately 0 m. This berth will accommodate larger LoLo vessels. Works required for this berth include:
(1) Demolition of the Eastern Breakwater, Head of Oil Berth and the Port Operations building. (2) Extension of quay wall westwards by 12 m (Sheet pile anchor wall). ( ) Extension of quayside crane rails. ( ) Localised dredging ( ) Accommodation works to protect ESB underwater cables.
10 Oil Berth It is proposed to remove Oil Berth and consolidate operations to Oil Berth . The berth will be a multi-purpose structure catering for oil vessels but with a future potential as a container vessel berth. Works proposed include;
(1) Demolition of Eastern Oil Jetty head. (2) Construction of new sheet pile combi wall. ( ) Infilling of Oil Berth ( ) Localised dredging.
This element of the project also involves the construction of a new quay wall along Jetty Road and localised dredging.
2
11 Dredging This slide depicts all of the dredging works proposed under the MP2 Project at Berth , South Channel (For vessel manoeuvring), Berth 0A and Oil Berth . The proposed volumes of material to be dredged are:
Berth : 1 , cubic metres. Berth 0A: , 0 cubic metres. Oil Berth : , 1 cubic metres. South Channel: 111, cubic metres.
Total: 2 , cubic metres.
12 Landside Representative (Operational Layout) This slide depicts a representative layout for the proposed MP2 Project Unified Ferry terminal. The area will be flexible as the usage of the port evolves. Key elements of the layout include;
Access/egress roads and check in booths. Internal circulation roads, with sign gantries. Staging areas for HGV’s, unaccompanied units and cars. Car park and car/bus set down area. Pedestrian underpass to link car park/bus set down area with existing terminal building. Operational plant areas. Services and utilities including; electrical, foul water & surface water conveyance systems etc.
1 Common Area Between MP2 Project & Internal Roads Project The previously permitted Internal Road Network Project includes a Greenway that follows the northern and eastern boundaries of the MP2 Project site. The MP2 planning boundary overlaps the Internal Road Project boundary, as can be seen shaded green on the slide.
It is proposed to install a gate restricting access to the Greenway during the greatest low spring tide events to mitigate visual disturbance of water birds. This gate will be located at the north of the site (See slide).
It is also proposed to develop a Heritage Installation at the end of the Greenway to denote the final entrance and exit point to the port.
1 Heritage Installation The proposed Heritage Installation will be comprised of a number of elements including;
Marker structure (Original bell & lantern) with a viewing and interpretative deck, Performance space (Utilising granite stone from the removed Eastern Breakwater), Sea Organ & Aeolian Harp
1 Proposed Development The MP2 Project is a large complex civil engineering project with major infrastructural works taking place in the hostile marine environment and busy port area.
Before discussing the proposed project programme, it is worth revisiting the proposed plan for the MP2 Project as it is directly linked to the project programme.
1 Programme A permission of 1 years is being sought.
This period is required to allow the MP2 Project Works to be carried out taking into account various aspects including; other ongoing port projects, consent assessments (Foreshore, Dumping at Sea, DCC Conditions), detailed design, procurement, port operations, health & safety, consent conditions/restrictions etc. and construction works.
Careful phasing of the marine side works in particular is required to prevent disruption to ongoing, growing port operations. The programme shows the primary project elements (Berth 2, Berth , Dredging and Oil Zone) in a sequential order to minimise disruption to operations. (Bars coloured green on the programme).
The submitted programme depicts the project from before receipt of permission from ABP to the end of the construction period, 201 to 20 2. This programme has already been superseded due to the direction of the Foreshore Unit of the Department of Housing, Planning & Local Government that the foreshore lease application can only be lodged in the event that planning is granted. This has added circa 1 year to the programme, show as the yellow column on the right hand side of the programme.
Due to this and other potential issues, flexibility in the programme is required, reinforcing the need for a 1 year permission.
1 Closing Slide
1 1 2 DUBLIN PORT EXISTING SITE 3 MP2 PROJECT PLANNING BOUNDARY 4 MP2 PROJECT PLANNING BOUNDARY 5 Proposed Development Key Facts • Modification to east end of Berth 49 • Rotation of consented Berth 52 by 9o • Modification to east end of consented Berth 52 to incorporate Berth 53 • Overall length of 288m • Vessel Capacity of 240m
6 BERTH 52 Key Facts • All structures outside SPA • Open pile structure to west • 8 No. R.C dolphins to east • Berthing face of 284m • Overall length of 406m • Scour protection mattress on seabed • Dredge volume of 159,595m3 • Standard Depth of -10.0m CD • Vessel Capacity of 240m
7 BERTH 53
BERTH 53 Photomontage (View from South Wall)
BERTH 53 Photomontage (View from Bull Wall) 8 Key Facts • Demolition of Eastern Breakwater, OB3 Head and Port Operations Building • Accommodation of ESB Cables • Extension of Crane Rails • Berth extension of 125m • Overall length of approximately 305m • Dredge volume of 69,640m3 • Standard depth of -11m CD
9 BERTH 50A Key Facts • Demolition of EOJ head • 145,000m3 infill to Oil Berth 04 • Allowance for future extension of crane rails • Overall length of 239m • Dredge volume of 83,414m3 • Standard depth of -13.0m CD • 2m high separation boundary • Separation Wall
10 OIL BERTH 03 11 DREDGING 12 LANDSIDE REPRESENTATIVE (OPERATIONAL) LAYOUT 13 COMMON AREA BETWEEN MP2 & INTERNAL ROADS PROJECT 14 HERITAGE INSTALLATION 15 Proposed Development UFT
BERTH 52
BERTH 53
DREDGING TO SOUTH OF CHANNEL
OIL ZONE
16 PROGRAMME 17 17
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA
(REG. NO. ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT
MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF EAMONN O EILL
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DUBLIN PORT COMPANY
PROJECT RATIONALE & ASSOCIATED ISSUES
Introduction
I am the Chief Executive Officer of Dublin Port Company (DPC), the applicant for permission for the MP2 Project, and the author of the Project Rationale attached as Appendix A to the Planning Report.
I was responsible for identifying the future infrastructure capacity needed to cater for the projected growth of cargo volumes in Dublin Port.
In particular, I identified the berth and landside capacities required on the northern side of Dublin Port at its eastern end to cater for the growth in unitised freight (both Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo) projected to 2040.
Based on this identification of requirements, the proposed development has been designed and the application for permission has been made to An Bord Pleanála.
MP Project in the context of Dublin Port’s Masterplan 2040
The MP P ojec i de i ed f om D blin Po Com an Masterplan. This Masterplan shows the options available for the development of port infrastructure in Dublin up to 2040.
The Masterplan was originally prepared in 2011 and 2012 following an extensive public consultation and was published in February 2012 as Masterplan 2012-2040. (See Appendix 1). A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the plan was carried out.
The Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project was derived from among the strategic development options identified in the Masterplan. Permission was granted by An Bord Pleanála for the ABR Project on 8th July 2015 (PA0034) and this project is currently under construction.
A review of the Masterplan was carried out in 2017 and 2018 (see Appendix 2) and Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 was published in June 2018. This, likewise, was supported by an SEA. Figure 3 in Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 shows a revised set of development options which included the approved ABR Project.
The reviewed Masterplan of 2018 differed from the original Masterplan of 2012 in three main respects:
The long-term growth rate assumption from 2010 to 2040 was increased from 2.5% to 3.3% The deci ion a aken o limi he dee ening of he o channel to -10.0m CD and not to ultimately go to -12.0m CD as originally envisaged in 2012 The development of additional port capacity by way of further infill into Dublin Bay was ruled out
Page 1
The MP2 Project is derived from the development options shown at Area D1 and at Area C in Figure 3. (See Appendix 3). The Project Rationale for this project (attached as Appendix A to the Planning Report) may be summarised as follows:
Overall port volumes are projected to increase from 28.9m gross tonnes to 77.2m gross tonnes over the 30 years from 2010 to 2040.1 Within this increase, Ro-Ro freight volumes are projected to increase from 0.7m units per annum to 2.2m units per annum and Lo-Lo freight volumes are projected to increase from 0.6m TEU to 1.6m TEU. The MP2 Project is designed to provide 30.2% of the additional capacity required to cater for this projected growth.2 Part of the new berth capacity proposed in the MP2 Project will come from the ede elo men of D blin Po Ea e n Oil Je Thi o o ed ede elo men ill en i el remove one oil berth (OB4) and will rebuild a second oil berth (OB3) for continued use for the importation of petroleum products but suitable for a change of use to container handling as and when petroleum imports decline as a result of climate change policy.3
1 Project Rationale; Table 2; Page 7 2 Project Rationale; Table 4; Page 8 3 Project Rationale; Page 11
Page 2
Issues raised in submissions and observations
In preparing this witness statement, I have considered the various submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála on the application for permission for the MP2 Project.
In doing this, I have focussed on the rationale for the MP2 Project and related issues.
I have identified 11 specific issues from the various submissions and observations and, for ease of reference, I have summarised them in the table below before responding to each in turn.
Ref Issue Submission
1 D blin Po market shares for Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo are too high as Irish Academy of Engineering evidenced by a comparison to the market shares of ports in Great Britain.
2 Unitised volumes should be redirected from Dublin Port to south Irish Academy of Engineering coast ports because of Brexit and as a means to address Dublin Dublin Docklands Business Forum Po ma ke dominance. In addition, directing trade to these McCutcheon Halley (for Port of Cork) o he n o o ld e n D blin Po ma ke ha e o he mo e acceptable levels of the 1980s and to a level consistent with the G ea e D blin A ea o la ion share.
3 Future capacity in Po of Co k ha been nde e ima ed in DPC McCutcheon Halley (for Port of Cork) Project Rationale.
4 There is an over-dependence on Dublin Port and its high market Irish Academy of Engineering shares of Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo are such as to create a security of supply issue for the country.
5 Dublin Port should be relocated in line with international practice. Dublin Docklands Business Forum
6 Dublin Port is no longer a fit site for a port because it will reach Dublin Docklands Business Forum maximum capacity in 2040 and is already having to purchase lands outside the port area (to create Dublin Inland Port) and has already had to reduce the volume of cruise ship calls.
7 Dublin Port should develop by way of joint ventures with other Dublin Docklands Business Forum ports.
8 Dublin Port has changed its mind on its development requirements Peadar Farrell in the short time since approval was granted for the ABR Project in 2015.
9 It would be unfair to future generations to grant permission for a Peadar Farrell development which would take 15 years to complete
10 The proposed berth depths of 10m, 11m and 13m will give rise to a Peadar Farrell f e a lica ion o dee en D blin Po channel belo he m level approved by An Bord Pleanála in 2015 in the ABR Project.
11 An infill of any berths now will lead to the development of new Peadar Buckley (Hollybrook Grove berths further into Dublin Bay in the future Householders Association)
Page 3
Issue 1: Dublin Port’s market shares for Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo are too high as evidenced by a comparison to the market shares of ports in Great Britain
The comparison of Dublin Port ha e of he ma ke in I eland i h he di ib ion of ni i ed volumes across British ports is misconceived as it ignores the very different geographies of Ireland and Britain.
Britain is a densely populated island (the UK as a whole has 274 people per square kilometre) with large populations and ports on its west, south and east coasts.
Ireland, by comparison, has 70 people per square kilometre and is not so densely populated as indicated in the satellite image below.
Moreover, Ireland has no short sea trade routes (similar to Dover-Calais or Dublin-Holyhead) to the west or south as does the UK.
Page 4
Issue 2: Unitised volumes should be redirected from Dublin Port to south coasts ports because of Brexit and as a means to address Dublin Port’s market dominance. In addition, directing trade to these southern ports would return Dublin Port’s market share to the more acceptable levels of the 1980s and to a level consistent with the Greater Dublin Area’s population share.
Table in DPC P ojec Ra ionale indica e ha D blin Ai o handled of all a enge h o gh he S a e ai o in Thi ha e inc ea ed o in
In the Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo cargo modes, Dublin Po ha e fo a e imila l la ge a and 72.6% respectively.
The large shares of Dublin Port and Dublin Airport are due to their locations in relation to national population concentrations.
The phrase market dominance used in submissions to An Bord Pleanála gives a mistaken impression that there are significant competitive forces within the Irish port system. There are not. The 2013 report by the Competition Authority noted two important points in its key findings:4
The characteristics of the Irish ports sector are such that competition between ports (i.e. inter-port competition) appears limited. Ensuring that competition within a port (i.e. intra-port competition) works well is especially important.
The MP2 Project supports the maximisation of competition within Dublin Port by expanding the ca aci of one of he Po h ee Lo-Lo terminals and by providing additional capacity for competing Ro-Ro services.
D blin Po la ge ol me in he ni i ed mode a e a a esult of geographical location at the cen e of he co n la ge concen a ion of o la ion
In addi ion D blin inc ea ing ha e of ni i ed ol me ince he (see Appendix 4) is as a result of major restructurings in the Port in 1992 and as a result of the operation of a competitive market within Dublin Port. These factors have increased investment, efficiencies and volumes and have given rise to the trends shown below.
4 Competition in the Irish Ports Sector, 2013, Executive Summary, Page i
Page 5
100% 89% 90%
70% 80%
70%
51% 60%
50% 54% 40%
30% 16% 42% 20%
10%
0% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018
Dublin as % of all-island Dublin as % Ireland NI as % of all-island
D blin Po ha e of na ional and i land ide ni i ed ol me in the 1980s were a function of inefficiencies and constraints in Dublin Port and also due to a lack of investment in port inf a c e Re ning D blin Po ha e o he e con ained le el of he i no warranted by any principle of proper planning or sustainable development.
Mo eo e he e i no hing n al abo D blin Po ha e of ni i ed ol me in ela ion o he population of the Greater Dublin Area.5
Northern Ireland has a population equal to 89% of the population of the Greater Dublin Area and it is serviced by three ports in close proximity to each other. Larne is 37km north of Belfast and Warrenpoint 71 km south.
Given that the population density in the Greater Dublin Area is twice that of Northern Ireland, the number of Ro-Ro units handled through the three ports in Northern Ireland per head of population (0.47) is very close to that handled through Dublin (0.51).
In the case of Lo-Lo, the higher number of TEU per head of population handled through Dublin Port (0.36 compared to i in line i h he GDA highe o la ion den i eo le e a e kilometre in the GDA compared to 131 in NI).
5 Dublin, Kildare, Louth, Meath and Wicklow.
Page 6
GDA NI
Population 2,036,216 1,811,867 Area (km2) 7,812 13,867 Population density (population per km2) 261 131 Ro-Ro units 1,031,897 849,901 Ro-Ro units per head of population 0.51 0.47 Lo-Lo TEU 726,212 250,014 Lo-Lo TEU per head of population 0.36 0.14
DPC does not accept that there is any basis for suggesting that volumes should be redirected from Dublin Port to south coasts either because of Brexit or to address any perceived problem of market dominance.
DPC believes that there is nothing at all remarkable about the proportions of Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo volumes which are handled in Dublin Port.
Page 7
Issue 3: Future capacity in Port of Cork has been underestimated in DPC’s Project Rationale
Utilisation of the additional Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo capacity which the MP2 Project is designed to provide in no way depends on the level of capacity available in any other port in the country (notably Rosslare, Waterford and Cork) either currently or in the future.
In the case of Lo-Lo, and depending on which source is relied on, the capacity of the new Ringaskiddy container terminal will be 240,000, 279,000 or 322,000 TEU per annum. 6 The 2018 throughput in Port of Cork was equivalent to 96%, 82% and 72% of each of these capacity estimates.
In addition to the capacity in Cork, there is an estimated 200,000 TEU per annum of capacity available in Waterford with a utilisation (based on 2018 volumes) of 22%.7
A no ed in DPC P ojec Ra ionale he an m of a ailable Lo-Lo capacity in Waterford and Cork, now or in the future, is small in comparison to the growth projected in Dublin Port.
In the case of Ro-Ro DPC P ojec Ra ionale e ima e ca aci in Ro la e of ni e annum8. The submission by McCutcheon Halley gives existing capacity of 35,000 units per annum at Ringaskiddy. Based on 2018 volumes, the respective utilisation of these capacities is 38% and 10%.
Beyond this, McCutcheon Halley submits that the possible future capacity of the new 314m multipurpose berth for Ro-Ro currently being constructed at Ringaskiddy should be taken into account in assessing the need for the MP2 Project. (McCutcheon Halley notes that this additional Ro-Ro capacity is dependent on completion of the N28 and Dunkettle road upgrade schemes).
Whatever possible Ro-Ro capacity there may be at the new berth at Ringaskiddy at some point in the future, it ill come a he co of ome of he be h Lo-Lo capacity of 240,000, 279,000 or 322,000 TEU per annum because the berth is multipurpose and cannot simultaneously be used for both Lo-Lo and Ro-Ro.
Again and a no ed in DPC P oject Rationale, the quantum of available Ro-Ro capacity in Rosslare and Cork, now or in the future, is small in comparison to the growth projected in Dublin Port.
6 240,000 TEU per annum Fig e ed in DPC P ojec a ionale a Page ba ed on Po of Co k Ringaskiddy Port Development Newsletter, May 2016: https://www.ringaskiddyportredevelopment.ie/contentfiles/Ringaskiddy%20Port%20Redevelopment_2.pdf 279,000 TEU per annum: Port of Cork submission to An Bord Pleanála (PA0035) 322,000 TEU per annum: Higher level suggested by McCutcheon Halley in its submission to An Bord Pleanála of 5th September 2019 7 Project Rationale, Table 12b, Page 18 8 Project Rationale, Table 12b, Page 18
Page 8
More importantly, because of the inherently low level of competition among ports and because of the small quantum of unused Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo capacity available in ports such as Rosslare, Waterford and Cork, the MP2 Project Rationale does not rely on what might happen in these ports.
DPC ie i ha he c en a e ca aci a ailable and an additional capacity that might be provided in the future in any of these three ports will be required to meet demand in their own hinterlands.
We note that the Port of Cork supports the MP2 Project and recommends that permission should be granted to the full extent of the capacity proposed. We agree with the Port of Cork that a project such as the MP2 Project should be assessed in a long-term context and with due regard to the spatial planning as well as the economic objectives of the National Planning Framework.
DPC foc i e cl i el on o iding fficien ca aci in D blin Po fo he demand f om he o o n natural hinterland. It is important for DPC that capacity constraints do not emerge in other ports which could increase demand in Dublin beyond what it would otherwise be. In the Project Rationale, this concept is recognised where Dublin Port is discussed in the context of Ireland’s port system.9
DPC is planning the development of Dublin Port in accordance with the long-term projections of future volume growth as set out in Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018. These projections suggest that Dublin Port will reach its maximum capacity by 2040.
Growth in energy consumption has become decoupled from economic growth as indicated in the chart in Appendix 5 which shows trends in GDP, energy and Dublin Port gross tonnes from 1995 to 2018.
DPC believes that a similar decoupling will take place at some point in the future between the g o h in D blin Po g o onne and economic g o h
However, DPC does not believe that this will happen before 2040 based on the large growth in port tonnes in recent years (36% in the six years to 2018) and given the projections in the Project Ireland 2040 National Planning Framework. Even the uncertainties of Brexit have not impacted on short- term growth in 2019:
In the ten months to October 2019, annual growth in Ro-Ro units was 3.9% In the same period, Lo-Lo TEU has grown by 7.2%. Three of the busiest months in the history of Dublin Port have been recorded in the ten months to October 2019 as shown below.
9 Project Rationale, Pages 15 to 17
Page 9
Year Month Gross tonnes Rank 2019 October 3,536,100 1 2019 March 3,409,248 2 2018 May 3,362,366 3 2018 October 3,350,659 4 2018 November 3,348,382 5 2019 May 3,305,390 6 2017 November 3,273,398 7 2018 June 3,247,577 8 2018 September 3,226,331 9 2018 August 3,221,666 10
DPC a oach o de elo ing o ca aci i o ma imi e ca aci on he c en foo in of Dublin Port such that as and when port volume growth decouples from economic growth in the years ahead, the requirement to develop new additional port infrastructure elsewhere on the east coast of Ireland will be minimised.
Page 10
Issue 4: There is an over-dependence on Dublin Port and its high market shares of Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo are such as to create a security of supply issue for the country
To the extent that the security of supply of national port infrastructure is a concern arising from a perceived over-dependence on Dublin Port, the solution to this (if it is deemed to be a problem at a national policy level) is to have additional port capacity available at other locations against the eventuality that Dublin Port cannot be accessed for some reason.
As it is, there is surplus capacity in the southern ports of Rosslare, Waterford and Cork. This capacity could be expanded to ensure the security of supply of national port infrastructure capacity.
Having additional spare port capacity available to address security of supply concerns comes at the cost (both financial and environmental) of having expensive infrastructural assets underutilised.
From an economic perspective, it does not matter where the cost of this underutilisation arises. However, from an environmental perspective, it is far better that the utilisation of the infrastructure which minimises port-related road haulage movements is maximised. Dublin Port achieves this objective.
Page 11
Issue 5: Dublin Port should be relocated in line with international practice
The contention that Dublin Port should be moved is frequently supported by reference to what other ports are doing or have done elsewhere in the world. However, on closer examination, the historic and future development of Dublin Port closely resembles what has happened in many other ports and some of the other options chosen in these other ports have been considered and rejected in Dublin for good reasons or are simply not viable.
Four examples illustrate the similarities and differences between Dublin and other ports:
Rotterdam Copenhagen Genoa Barcelona
Dublin Port has, over centuries, steadily moved eastwards as bridges, unpassable to sailing ships, were built and as deeper water was required for larger ships. This resulted, firstly, in the canalisation of the river as far as what is now East Wall Road and, thereafter, infill into the bay. This process has now come to its end and Dublin Port will reach its maximum capacity in 2040 by the development of existing land areas and by the intensification of their use.
The development seen in Dublin is similar to that in E o e la ge o Rotterdam (see Appendix 6). In recent years, the port was expanded by the construction of a 4km dyke in the North Sea to allow the creation of 2,000 hectares of made ground by infill. The equivalent development in Dublin by further infill into Dublin Bay was rejected by An Bord Pleanála in 2010 and has now been ruled out by DPC in Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018.
The Port of Copenhagen provides a second useful example (see Appendix 7). In Copenhagen, new berths for cruise ships have been built on infilled land and the relocation of he o con aine terminal to a new facility 2 km away is planned. An equivalent approach in Dublin would, again, involve further eastward expansion into Dublin Bay by infill.
In some ports, such as Genoa (see Appendix 8), the expansion of port capacity has been achieved by building new additional facilities along the coast at a nearby location. In Genoa, the SECH container terminal is located close to the centre of the city and additional capacity has been provided 10 km west at the Voltri Container Terminal. There is no equivalent location as close to Dublin Port where such an option could be realised.
Finally, there is the example of the Port of Barcelona (see Appendix 9) where large new breakwaters were built to allow land reclamation to create new port capacity immediately south of the city. The equivalent in Dublin would involve the infilling of Sandymount strand.
Simplistic comparisons between the situations in different ports do not provide a reliable basis for the proper planning and sustainable development of Dublin Port. The approach set out in
Page 12
Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 en i age D blin Po e i ing b o nfield land being de elo ed to their maximum capacity and, thereafter, new facilities being developed elsewhere on the east coast to cater for ongoing growth in port volumes post 2040.
Page 13
Issue 6: Dublin Port is no longer a fit site for a port because it will reach maximum capacity in 2040 and is already having to purchase lands outside the port area (to create Dublin Inland Port) and has already had to reduce the volume of cruise ship calls
Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 explicitly recognises that Dublin Port will reach its maximum capacity by 2040 and it sets out the range of development options to achieve the maximum capacity which DPC believes is attainable based on the proper planning and sustainable development of the brownfield lands at Dublin Port. The MP2 Project is a subset of these development options.
The Masterplan also rules out any further expansion of Dublin Port by further infill into Dublin Bay.10
In o de o ma imi e he ca aci of he Po e i ing foo in DPC i de elo ing he hec a e Dublin Inland Port as an alternative off-site location for port-related but non-core activities including the storage of empty containers (see Appendix 10). By relocating these activities from Dublin Port, DPC is maximising the lands available in Dublin Port for the transit storage of cargo discharged and loaded onto ships.11
It is incorrect to suggest that Dublin Port is no longer a fit site for port operations when the reality is ha DPC i ma imi ing he ca go handling ca aci hich he Po fi ed foo in of hec a e can provide.
It is entirely normal for any piece of infrastructure to reach maximum capacity utilisation over time. Once this happens at Dublin Port, then additional facilities will be required elsewhere. Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 recognises this reality12 and by implementing the development options identified (including the MP2 Project), DPC is ensuring that the scale of whatever facilities might need to be built elsewhere to cater for growth beyond 2040 can be optimised. We believe that this is the correct approach, consistent with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development.
Suggesting that the development of Dublin Port should now cease before it has reached full capacity utilisation (with further additional port capacity presumably being developed at some other location) is the antithesis of proper planning and sustainable development.
10 Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018; Executive Summary; Paragraph 5; Page 8 11 Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018; Page 4 12 Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018; Page 23; Point 4 in second column
Page 14
Finally, it is incorrect to suggest that cruise ships have been banned from Dublin Port. All that has actually happened is that the numbers of cruise ships have been limited for three years (from 2021 to 2022) to enable works to proceed at Alexandra Quay West as part of the ABR Project. Once these works are complete, then the temporary restriction on cruise ship numbers will be removed.13
13 https://www.dublinport.ie/briefing-document-minister-shane-ross-dublin-ports-new-cruise-ship- berthing-pricing-policy/
Page 15
Issue 7: Dublin Port should develop by way of joint ventures with other ports
The submission by the Docklands Business Forum that Dublin Port should develop by way of joint ventures with other ports is made with specific examples as shown below:
The Ro-Ro capacity available in Rosslare is dealt with in some detail in the Project Rationale.14 In summary, there is an estimated spare capacity for Ro-Ro freight of 210,000 units per annum currently available in Rosslare but little evidence of demand for this spare capacity based on the trends of recent years.15
Moreover, the quantum of spare capacity available in Rosslare is small and is equivalent to five years of he g o h in D blin Po Ro-Ro freight volume.16
A ega d Ro la e clo e o imi o Con inen al E o e hi ing line ch a CLdN and Irish Ferries have chosen to operate services from Dublin Port rather than from Rosslare in recent years. Ro la e clo e o imi in e m of ea mile i mo e han off e b D blin land ide o imi o the origin and destination points for exporters and importers.
The Docklands Business Forum contradicts itself when it says that Dublin Port should concentrate more of its space on cruise and ferry terminals. The MP2 Project is intended to provide more ferry terminal capacity and, in doing this, to provide more capacity for Ro-Ro freight.
As for the suggestion that Dublin Port should concentrate more of its space on cruise, the cruise sector has been adequately catered for in the previously consented ABR Project.
14 Project Rationale, Pages 16 to 19 15 See he end in Ro la e Ro-Ro volumes in Appendix 3 in the Project Rationale which show annual throughput of 128,000 units for each of the three years 2016 to 2018. 16 See Table 12b in the Project Rationale
Page 16
Issue 8: Dublin Port has changed its mind on its development requirements in the short time since approval was granted for the ABR Project in 2015
Construction of the ABR Project is progressing and significant progress has been made to date:
Approximately 700 metres of quay wall construction has been completed in Alexandra Basin The former Tara Mines loading jetty has been demolished and a new landside ship loader has been installed and commissioned in Alexandra Basin A new jetty for Ro-Ro ferries has been constructed in Alexandra Basin and is due to go into operation by mid-2021 Berth dredging and remediation of contaminated dredge spoils has commenced in Alexandra Basin Work on the third of the six permitted annual capital dredging campaigns to deepen the channel to -10.0m CD is underway
Examples of works under construction or already completed as part of the ABR Project are shown in Appendix 11.
The relationship between the ABR Project and the MP2 Project is explicitly set out in the Project Rationale for the MP2 Project as follows:
DPC envisages that the development of Dublin Port to its ultimate capacity will be achieved by three large developments, all SID projects:
1. Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project (PA0034), which is under construction. 2. MP2 Project, now proposed. 3. A final project including development of land areas K, L, M, N and O (as shown in Appendix 1) and possibly also including the development of the Southern Port Access Route (SPAR) to provide connectivity between the Dublin Port Tunnel and the south port lands as envisaged in NTA’s Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016 to 2035.
The MP2 Project complements the ABR Project in providing capacity for growth in the Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo modes in Area C and Area D on the north side of the Port and at its eastern end (as shown in Appendix 1). 17
17 Project Rationale; Page 2
Page 17
The suggestion that DPC has changed its mind in respect of the previously consented ABR Project is incorrect.
Page 18
Issue 9: It would be unfair to future generations to grant permission for a development which would take 15 years to complete
DPC commi men o he o e lanning and ainable de elo men of D blin Po c ea e a formidable development challenge for the company.
DPC has prepared a Masterplan showing a range of development options available to bring the Port to its maximum and ultimate capacity by 2040. This Masterplan was subject to an SEA. From these options flow multiple projects, large and small, development consents for which are sought directly from An Bord Pleanála (for SID projects) or from Dublin City Council and Fingal City Council (for non- SID development).
The proposed works at OB3, OB4, Berth 52 and Berth 53 have been combined to create the MP2 Project. All of the works are in the same area within Dublin Port. The works on OB3 and OB4 are inextricably linked as are the works on Berth 52 and Berth 53. All of the works are justified by the projected growth in the cargo modes (Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo) they are intended to facilitate.
A similar approach was adopted with the ABR Project where works on multiple berths were combined to create a single project.
All of the development projects, large and small, being implemented by the company are linked within the one Masterplan, in respect of which an SEA was undertaken.
As Dublin Port reaches full capacity utilisation over the next 20 years or so, it becomes more and more difficult to optimally time the commencement of development works so as to minimise disruption to existing cargo flows. Moreover, there is considerable uncertainty about when the co n transition away from petroleum products will allow the company to redevelop the eastern oil jetty for alternative use.18
Rather than it being unfair to future generations, DPC believes that the approach it is following in the development of Dublin Port gives clarity and certainty about the development of Dublin Port. This is particularly so given that the Masterplan envisages the development of Dublin Port reaching its end by 2040, some 333 years since the establishment of the first port authority in Dublin in 1707.
The request for a grant of planning permission to enable construction of the MP2 Project over the e iod o i ba ed on DPC e e ience of con c ing majo ojec in D blin Po in ecen years.
This experience shows that programme changes are both inevitable and difficult to predict. The most recent example of this has been the need for the company to develop Brexit-related border inspection infrastructure.
18 This is described in more detail on Pages 29 to 31 in the Project Rationale
Page 19
DPC be e ima e i ha he MP Project works could be completed by 2032 and this is the timescale shown in the EIAR19 (see Appendix 12).
However, when experience suggests that the actual construction period could likely be longer as a result of factors that cannot today be predicted, DPC believes that it is preferable to address this reality at the outset and seek a 15 year permission.
The environmental assessments in the EIAR have been prepared to cover the 15 year period to 2035. DPC consulted with the relevant statutory authorities (including DCC, NPWS, IFI and TII) on this basis and none of these statutory authorities has raised an issue with the assessments carried out over this 15 year period or with the length of the permission sought.
The proposed duration of the permission sought is sustainable, both in terms of environmental assessment and from the perspective of proper planning.
19 EIAR Main Document (Part 1), Section 3.3.2, Construction Sequence Summary, Page 3-37
Page 20
Issue 10: The proposed berth depths of -10m CD, -11m CD and -13m CD will give rise to a future application to deepen Dublin Port’s channel below the -10m CD level approved by An Bord Pleanála in 2015 in the ABR Project
DPC P ojec Ra ionale add e es the issue of future growth in ship sizes20 in some detail and explains the thinking behind the three different depths of the four berths proposed in the MP2 Project.
In particular, this explanation includes a discussion of the depths of these berths in relation to the depth of -10m CD in the channel which was permitted in the ABR Project. In short, the deepest berths envisaged in Dublin Port will have a depth alongside of -13.0m CD and this berth depth is compatible with a channel depth of -10.0m CD.21
DPC has confirmed in Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 that the final and ultimate depth of the channel in Dublin Port will be -10.0m CD:
In addition to the land area of Dublin Port, there is marine side infrastructure comprising the entrance channel, the berths and basins within the Port. Figure 5 shows the ultimate depths envisaged in Dublin Port by 2040. Importantly, the original view in the Masterplan in February 01 that Dublin Port’s channel might ultimately be deepened to -12.0m CD has been changed and it is instead envisaged now that the channel will only be deepened to -10.0m CD in accordance with the consents secured as part of the ABR Project. This work has already commenced and is scheduled to be complete by 2023.22
DPC is developing Dublin Port towards its ultimate capacity guided by Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018. The berth depths proposed in the MP2 Project are entirely consistent with a channel depth in the port of -10.0m CD. This depth will be attained as part of works currently being carried out as part of the ABR Project.
Once the depth of -10.0m CD has been attained in the channel, that will be the final deepening of the channel in Dublin Port and the concern expressed that there will be a future application to further deepen the channel in Dublin Port is unfounded.
20 Project Rationale; Pages 26 to 28 21 See, in particular, Table 18 on Page 26 of the Project Rationale. In summary, this table shows that a ship with a draught of 12.4 metres could enter Dublin Port on most days in the year at or around full tide. It is entirely normal in ports everywhere that there are tidal restrictions on larger ships. This is what gives rise to the apparent discrepancy between a berth depth of -13.0m CD and a channel depth of -10.0m CD. 22 Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018; Page 51. Note that the Figure 5 referenced is reproduced in this witness statement at Appendix 13.
Page 21
Issue 11: Any infill of any berths now will lead to development of new berths further into Dublin Bay in the future
Figure 5 in Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 shows the indicative layout of the channel and berths in Dublin Port by 2040. (See Appendix 13).
The berths proposed in the MP2 Project directly reflect the indicative development proposals shown in Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 as summarised below.
Berth Indicative length Length as shown MP2 Project planning application as show in in MP2 Project drawing reference Figure 5 of Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018
OB3 242m 239m CP1770-BLP-ZZ-ZZ-M2-MA-0041
50A 306m 306m CP1770-BLP-ZZ-ZZ-M2-MA-0041
52 345m 288m CP1770-BLP-ZZ-ZZ-M2-MA-0042
53 345m 284m CP1770-BLP-ZZ-ZZ-M2-MA-0043
Under the Masterplan, no further infillings of existing berths are proposed and the maximum extent of development in Dublin Port will not exceed the options set out in Figure 3 of Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 (see Appendix 3).
The infill of OB4 is the final infill of any berth envisaged in Dublin Port.23 OB4 is little used and over the five years from 2014 to 2018 accounted for only 1.1% of petroleum imports.
It is proposed to infill OB4 to provide additional capacity for the DFT container terminal both by the lengthening of Berth 50A and by the provision of an additional 2.0 hectares of terminal area.
The MP2 Project will increase the berthage at the DFT container terminal from 560 metres to 925 metres as shown below.
23 The proposed development involving the infill of OB4 is described on Pages 11 and 12 of the Project Rationale.
Page 22
Berth Depth Current Proposed length future length Berth 50 -10.0m CD 380m 382m Berth 50A -11.0m CD 180m 306m OB3 -13.0m CD - 239m Total 560m 927m
The existing Berth 50A has a depth of -11.0m CD and a length of 180 metres. The maximum length container ship which can be accommodated at the berth is 160 metres.
The infill of OB4 will allow Berth 50A to be lengthened to 306 metres. At this length, virtually every container ship with a capacity in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU could be accommodated at the berth subject to ship draught.
At -11.0m CD, over 40% of the global fleet of container ships with a capacity in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU could be accommodated at Berth 50A at their maximum draught.24
In addition to the additional capacity which infilling OB4 will provide through facilitating the lengthening of Berth 50A, the infill will also allow the redevelopment of OB3 to provide a long (239 metres) and deep (-13.0m CD) berth.
In combination, the redeveloped OB3 and the lengthened Berth 50A will allow over 75% of all container ships with a capacity in the range 1,000 TEU to 3,500 TEU to be accommodated in DFT. This would greatly inc ea e he Po o e all ca aci fo handling la ge con aine hips in the future.
The additional berth capacity and land area which the infill of OB4 will provide for the DFT container terminal is very important to cater for the projected volume of Lo-Lo in Dublin Port in 2040.
The proposal to infill OB4 is consistent with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development as it involves the redevelopment of existing brownfield infrastructure (which is approaching the end of its useful life) to provide new and additional capacity for other cargo volumes.
24 See Table 21 in Project Rationale, Page 28
Page 23
Conclusion
The application for permission for the MP2 Project has been prepared, from its inception, based on an application of the principles of proper planning and sustainable development to the challenge of bringing Dublin Port to its ultimate capacity by 2040.
The works proposed in the MP2 Project need to be constructed in an active working port experiencing consistently high growth rates. The likely significant environmental impacts of the development have been considered in detail in the EIAR over a 15-year period.
The submissions to An Bord Pleanála have questioned the rationale for the project in a number of aspects and I have responded to these submissions in this witness statement.
Dublin Port Company is firmly of the belief that when the Board fully considers the application doc men a ion he bmi ion and e on e made on he a lica ion and DPC e on e o those submissions, the Board will be enabled to conclude that the MP2 Project is in accordance with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development and should proceed to grant the requested 15-year permission.
Page 24
Appendix 1 Masterplan 2012 2040 (February 2012)
Page 25
Appendix 2 Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018 (June 2018)
Page 26
Appendix 3 Figure 3 from Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018
Page 27
Appendix 4 Ro-Ro volumes in ports in Ireland for selected years from 1990 to 2018
Units 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018 Dublin 101,943 205,311 489,669 629,747 725,297 877,826 1,031,897 Rosslare 61,541 73,589 100,950 137,182 122,326 124,331 128,414 Dun Laoghaire 23,813 40,713 39,080 31,005 944 - - Cork 3,246 6,412 3,940 7,707 3,820 763 3,561 Belfast 79,226 167,037 349,857 338,370 313,630 496,498 548,035 Larne 332,566 375,077 322,375 418,954 357,513 193,168 200,394 Warrenpoint 42,423 59,573 52,273 63,889 85,831 87,699 101,472 Total 644,758 927,712 1,358,144 1,626,854 1,609,361 1,780,285 2,013,773
Dublin as % island 16% 22% 36% 39% 45% 49% 51% Dublin as % Ireland 54% 63% 77% 78% 85% 88% 89% NI as % island 70% 65% 53% 50% 47% 44% 42%
Page 28
Appendix 5 Trends in economic growth, energy25 and port tonnes, 1995 to 2018
400.0
348.2 350.0
300.0 319.8
250.0
200.0
137.9 150.0
100.0 100.0
50.0
- 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
TPER (ktoe) Dublin Port ('000 gross tonnes) Constant GDP m (2017)
25 Total Primary Energy Requirement in kilo-tonnes of oil equivalent, SEAI Energy Balances
Page 29
Appendix 6 - Port of Rotterdam
Page 30
Appendix 7 Port of Copenhagen
Page 31
Appendix 8 Port of Genoa
Page 32
Appendix 9 Port of Barcelona
Page 33
Appendix 10 Figure 2 from Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018
Page 34
Appendix 11 Examples of ABR Project works under construction
Page 35
New Ro-Ro jetty and terminal nearing completion in Alexandra Basin Due to be operational mid-2020 260,000 Ro-Ro units and 1,500 arrivals per annum from Day 1 “L shaped former Tara Mines jetty has since been demolished
Page 36
New ship loader for zinc and lead ore concentrates commissioned
Page 37
Infill of Graving Dock 2 with dredged and remediated contaminated dredge spoils from Alexandra Basin
Page 38
Approximately 400 metres of new quay wall built on Ocean Pier West New Ro-Ro ramp installed
Page 39
Appendix 12 MP2 Project indicative construction timeline
Page 40
Appendix 13 Figure 5 from Masterplan 2040 Reviewed 2018
Page 41 STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA ABP-304888-19
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF HELENA GAVIN
PLANNING POLICY
ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
1 QUALIFICATIONS AND RELEVANT EXPERIENCE 1.1 My name is Helena Gavin. I am a Town Planner and hold a Master’s Degree of Science in Town and Country Planning from Queen’s University Belfast, a Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Engineering from Trinity College Dublin and a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics and Geography from University College Dublin. I am a Member of the Irish Planning Institute and I have over 22 years’ experience of professional town planning in Ireland.
1.2 I have extensive experience in all aspects of town planning and have been a Director of Planning with RPS Planning & Environment and RPS Group Limited for 13 years. Dublin City and the Greater Dublin Area have been the focus of my professional activities over the past twenty years and I currently act as a planning consultant to Dublin Port Company.
1.3 This statement has been prepared in relation to the MP2 Project.
2 INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT 2.1 I am the principal planner on the project and the author of the Planning Report submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála (the Board) on 11 July 2019. I am also the author of section 2.3 Spatial Planning Policy of Chapter 2 and section 3.7 Other Related Projects and Potential for Ex-Situ Effects of Chapter 3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR). An updated Planning History is enclosed in Appendix A of this statement to include applications and permissions since July 2019.
2.2 A summary of the prevailing policy within which the application will be assessed is set out below:
The EU has defined a Trans European Network-Transport (TEN-T) which connects the major European urban areas and includes the major European transport corridors and multimodal hubs. Dublin Port is a core port on the TEN-T network and is a designated node on the North Sea- Mediterranean Core Network Corridor1.
Within the National Ports Policy 2013 (NPP), Dublin Port is a Port of National Significance (Tier 1). Referring specifically to the Dublin Port Masterplan, the policy states that “the Government endorses the core principles underpinning the company’s Masterplan and the continued commercial development of Dublin Port Company is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy”. The policy states that “the provision of adequate and efficient capacity into the future is a crucial Government strategic objective”2. In order to achieve this, the policy states that “National and Regional Planning Guidelines should also recognise the importance of the three categories of ports and allow for their continued development”. NPP encourages ports and local authorities to collaborate on issues of mutual benefit and work together to maximise the potential afforded by their natural, as well as, manmade environment.
Within Project Ireland 2040 National Planning Framework (NPF) the preferred approach to planning the future spatial strategy is promoting compact development that focuses on reusing previously developed, ‘brownfield’ land, building up infill sites, which may not have been built on before, and either reusing or redeveloping existing sites and buildings.
The NPF acknowledges the NPP and the national ports hierarchy and recognises that the long- term international trend in ports and shipping is towards increased consolidation of resources in order to achieve optimum efficiencies of scale. This, the NPF notes, has knock-on effects in terms of vessel size, the depths of water required at ports and the type and scale of port hinterland transport connections. The NPF confirms that the role of Tier 1 ports (which includes Dublin Port) will be considered in tandem with long-term infrastructural requirements as part of the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy, Metropolitan Area Strategic Plan and Development Plan processes through National Policy Objective 403. A key objective of the NPF, to enable growth of Dublin and nationally, is infrastructure pertaining to Dublin Port and looks towards “facilitating the 1 Figure 1-1 Planning Report, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure_en 2 National Ports Policy 2013, page 43 3 “Ensure that the strategic development requirements of Tier 1 Ports, are addressed as part of Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies, metropolitan area and city development plans to ensure the effective growth and sustainable development of the city regions and regional and rural areas”
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 1 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
growth of Dublin Port through greater efficiency, limited expansion into Dublin Harbour and improved road access, particularly to/ from the southern port area”4.
It is envisaged by the National Development Plan 2018–2027 (NDP) that significant investment in Ireland’s airports and ports will play a major role in safeguarding and enhancing Ireland’s international connectivity which is fundamental to Ireland’s international competitiveness, trading performance in both goods and services and enhancing its attractiveness to foreign direct investment. The NDP clearly states that the importance of this objective cannot be understated in the context of the UK’s exit from the EU in 2019.
The Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy 2019-2031 (RSES) made in June 2019 notes that the Dublin region is the main global gateway to Ireland, with Dublin Airport one of the fastest growing in Europe and continued growth both in the import and export of goods through Dublin Port. The RSES states that as Ireland’s only international city of scale, Dublin acts as the global gateway to Ireland and its influence extends well beyond its administrative boundaries. Growth Enablers for Dublin City and Metropolitan Area include to “Protect and improve access to the global gateways of Dublin Airport and Dublin Port for the Region and to serve the Nation, and safeguard and improve regional accessibility and service by rail, road and communication, with a key focus on the Dublin-Belfast Economic Corridor”5.
The RSES repeats National Strategic Outcome 40 and recognises the crucial role that the provision of High-Quality International Connectivity has for overall international competitiveness and addressing opportunities and challenges from Brexit through investment in our ports and airports, in line with sectoral priorities already defined through NPP such as major redevelopment at Dublin Port. The RSES states that “given the nature and function of ports, combined with the location interfacing with the marine environment, there is potential for environmental conflict with the existing ecosystem”6. It continues that this sensitivity is further increased by the proximity of most of the region’s ports to designated sites and concludes that “in order to minimise potential impacts on EU protected habitats, brownfield port developments which maximise the capacity of existing port sites should be prioritised over greenfield developments. The approach to port development in the Region shall adhere to the European Commission guidelines on the Implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in Estuaries and Coastal Zones”7. Relevant regional Policy Objectives guiding the development of ports, and specifically Dublin Port, within the RSES include RPO 8.21, which states “The EMRA will support the role of Dublin Port as a Port of National Significance (Tier 1 Port) and its continued commercial development, including limited expansion and improved road access, including the Southern Port Access Route”8.
The Metropolitan Area Spatial Plan (MASP) identifies several Guiding Principles for the sustainable development of the Dublin Metropolitan Area. With respect to Dublin Port these include “Dublin as a Global Gateway – In recognition of the international role of Dublin, to support and facilitate the continued growth of Dublin Airport and Dublin Port, to protect and improve existing access and support related access improvements”9.
Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, 2016 to 2035 seeks to protect and enhance the capacity of the TEN-T network including Dublin Port. The importance of Dublin Port at a regional and national level is recognised within the strategy and the need for landside connectivity is prioritised. The strategy states “the need to facilitate the expansion of activity at Dublin Port into the future, as both a commercial and passenger port, must, therefore, be supported by the Strategy, through the clear identification and safeguarding of designated access routes”10.
The Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 (Development Plan) states that “Dublin City Council fully supports and recognises the important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the region and the consequent need in economic competitiveness and 4 Project Ireland 2040 National Planning Framework, pages 57, 142 5 Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region, page 34 6 Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region, page 196 7 Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region, page 196 8 Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region, page 196 9 Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy for the Eastern and Midland Region, page 101 10 Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, 2016 to 2035, page 36
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 2 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
employment terms to facilitate port activities……Dublin Port will have a significant role to play in the future development and growth of the city and it is considered prudent to plan the structure of this part of the city, including the proposed public transport network, to fully integrate with the developing new city structure and character, while having regard to the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012 – 2040”11. In addition to this high level support the Development Plan contains a number of policies and objectives facilitating Dublin Port operations and activities, including:
“SC9: To support and recognise the important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the city and region and to facilitate port activities and development, having regard to the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040”12.
“CEE23 (iii): To recognise that Dublin Port is a key economic resource, including for cruise tourism, and to have regard to the policies and objectives of the Dublin Port Masterplan”13.
2.3 The prevailing policy within which the proposed development will be assessed provides specific support for the operation and development of Dublin Port and coalesce around several overriding objectives which include:
Underpinning Economic Growth: Dublin Port is crucial to the regional and national economy and should provide capacity required to ensure continued access to international markets and as part of the TEN-T.
Facilitating Tourism: Dublin Port is a key resource in providing for cruise tourism and passenger ferry services to Ireland.
Protecting the Environment: Development of Dublin Port must be cognisant of the designation of Dublin Bay as a UNESCO biosphere and other environmental designations such as SAC and SPA.
Integration with Dublin City: Development of the Dublin Port should be integrated with the city through ensuring the periphery of the port area facing residential areas is designed and landscaped to minimise the impact of its industrial character.
3 RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS 3.1 In preparing this witness statement, I have considered the report by the Planning Authority, each of the submissions and observations made to the Board by the prescribed bodies and by various parties in relation to the planning policy aspects of the MP2 Project. I have addressed each in turn below, where appropriate.
Response to the Report of the Planning Authority
3.2 This statement responds to the report made by the Planning Authority with respect to planning policy and the planning process applicable to the development. Accordingly, the topics and responses are set out below. Other aspects raised by the Planning Authority will be addressed by other members of the project team within the statements of evidence delivered to this oral hearing. Compliance with the Development Plan 3.3 It is noted that the Planning Authority confirms in its report that the proposed development complies with the stated aims of the Development Plan as well as the zoning objective, as it provides for port- related facilities and activities which are permitted uses14. It is also noted that the Planning Authority 11 Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 59 12 Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 59 13 Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 100, 347 14 Planning Authority’s Report, page 24
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 3 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
recognises that the proposed development will facilitate an increase in the capacity in the port which will ultimately enhance the economic life of the city which is a core aim of the Development Plan15. The Planning Authority also notes that the proposed development will minimise the extent of any physical impacts on the character and amenities of the coastal zone/bay and will also allow for greater physical connectivity with the city and the reuse of existing resources16.
Port Greenway and Heritage Zone 3.4 As a point of clarification to the Board, it is noted that the Dublin Port Internal Road Network – which includes works to provide an enhanced landscaped and amenity route along the northern and eastern boundary of the port – was granted planning permission under Reg. Ref. 3084/16 and, accordingly, is not before the Board. A Notification of the Final Grant of Permission is appended to this statement at Appendix B. 3.5 This circa 4km amenity route, or Port Greenway, as illustrated on Figure 3-1, will give pedestrians and cyclists access to a perimeter route with vantage points overlooking the Tolka Estuary.
Figure 3-1: Permitted Dublin Port Internal Road Network including Port Greenway
3.6 The MP2 Project proposes minor alterations to the development already permitted under the planning permission granted. The alteration comprises the addition of hard and soft works along the eastern boundary of the site, to further enhance the public realm by creating a heritage zone into which an interpretative art installation, the ‘Marker’, will be inserted. The relevant area of overlap is illustrated on Figure 3-2 and the additions proposed are highlighted on Figure 3-3.
15 Planning Authority’s Report, page 24 16 Planning Authority’s Report, page 24
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 4 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Figure 3-2: Port Greenway and MP2 Project Elements
Figure 3-3: Port Greenway MP2 Project Additions17
3.7 The implementation of the Port Greenway permitted under Reg. Ref. 3084/16 is currently being procured. Provision of a landscape plan for the greenway as requested by the Parks and Landscape Service18 relating to those items already permitted would not be considered appropriate in this instance.
3.8 It is submitted to the Board that quality design measures with respect to visual amenity are being implemented by DPC at appropriate locations as part of separate planning applications on an ongoing 17 See Appendix C 18 Planning Authority’s Report, page 13, 22, 43
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 5 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
and staged manner around the periphery of the port in order to safeguard residential amenity and improve the interface and profile of the port with neighbouring uses. Such measures include the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment Project which included the Graving Dock (Ref. PL 29N.PA0034), Dublin Port Internal Road Network which includes the Port Greenway (Reg. Ref. 3084/16), Port Precinct (Ref. Ref. 3452/15) and high quality finishes to bridges over M50/Bond Road (Reg. Ref. 2495/17) and Alexandra Road (Reg. Ref. 4521/18). 3.9 In order to address the requests made by the Parks and Landscape Services with respect to the eastern portion of the Port Greenway and the additions proposed by the MP2 Project further details are provided in the witness statements delivered to the oral hearing by James McCrory and Ray Holbeach.
Conservation and Built Industrial Heritage 3.10 In response to the Conservation Comments contained in Appendix B to the Planning Authority’s Report, it is noted by the Applicant that it is a key objective of the core strategy of the Development Plan to protect and enhance the special characteristics of the city’s built and natural heritage. It is the policy of Dublin City Council “to seek the preservation of the built heritage of the city that makes a positive contribution to the character, appearance and quality of local streetscapes and the sustainable development of the city” (CHC1)19. The principal mechanism enabling Dublin City Council to achieve this is through the Record of Protected Structures and the designation of Conservation Areas.
3.11 As set out in the Planning Report, there are no protected structures within the application site20 and it is not located within a conservation area. It is in this context that the Planning Report states that there are no architectural features of built heritage designated within the development area. The Planning Report does state however that the Eastern Breakwater and Breakwater Lighthouse are included in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR)21. In this regard the Planning Report states that the built heritage of the port is essentially industrial archaeological heritage rather than architectural heritage. Policy CHCO10, parts 6 and 14 state that it is the policy of the Council: “6. To have regard to the city’s industrial heritage and Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR) in the preparation of Local Area Plans (LAPs) and the assessment of planning applications and to publish the DCIHR online. To review the DCIHR in accordance with Ministerial recommendations arising from the national Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) survey of Dublin City and in accordance with the Strategic Approach set out in Section 11.1.4 of this chapter.
14. To implement and promote The Dublin Principles (ICOMOS, 2011) as guiding principles to assist in the documentation, protection, conservation and appreciation of industrial heritage as part of the heritage of Dublin and Ireland”.
3.12 These policies have been addressed in the Conservation Strategy and Industrial Heritage Appraisal prepared by Southgate Associates Engineering Conservation Consultants and the Industrial Heritage Impact & Compensation Planning & Design Report prepared by MOLA Architects both included as part of the application. The Southgate Appraisal confirms that the implementation of the Applicant’s operational programme is being carried out in line with best conservation principles and is mitigated by a conservation strategy which has been designed with due regard to the ICOMOS “Dublin Principles”22. The proposed treatment of the Pier Head addressing points raised in Appendix B to the Planning Authority’s Report23 which also includes points on the South Wall and North Wall will be delivered to the oral hearing by Niall Brady in the composite witness statement on Cultural Heritage and Adrian Bell in the composite witness statement on Coastal Processes.
3.13 The Planning Authority in its report confirms that the proposal for the heritage zone is a substantial mitigation and planning gain concluding that the proposal submitted by the Applicant renders the loss
19 Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 184 20 MP2 Project Planning Report page 52 21 MP2 Project Planning Report, page 52 22 Southgate Associates Conservation Strategy and Industrial Heritage Appraisal, page 10 23 Planning Authority’s Report, page 32
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 6 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
of the existing Pier Head to be acceptable, recognising that the strategic importance of the port and its capacity to continue to fulfil its role must be balanced against the demolition of the existing Pier Head24.
Community Gain 3.14 The Applicant has proposed measures in order to meet with the provision for community gain, should the Board be so minded as to attach a condition in this regard. Prior to the submission of the application for permission to the Board, the Applicant engaged extensively with the Planning Authority with respect to the community gain proposal. The Planning Authority confirms these proposals to be acceptable in principle in its report25. The proposals provide for funding towards the creation of a city farm on lands owned by Dublin City Council close to the port. In this regard the final location of the site on which this use would be located will be decided by Dublin City Council and not the Applicant. In this context the following amendment text is submitted to give clarity:
“In the context of a grant of permission for the MP2 Project, Dublin Port Company will make the following community gain contributions:
i. The sum of €1m will be allocated to a fund dedicated to the enhancement and support of educational projects at St Joseph’s Co-Ed Primary School East Wall in accordance with a scheme to be developed by Dublin Port Company with local schools and key stakeholders including Dublin City Council.
ii. Dublin Port Company will allocate a sum of 50% of the site value of the Polefield (or sales price achieved) at the date of the grant of planning permission (to a maximum contribution of €1m) towards the provision and operation of a City Farm for the benefit of communities close to the Port and the City generally. The City Farm will be developed on lands owned by Dublin City Council close to the Port at a location to be determined by Dublin City Council. Dublin City Council shall ensure that the funding allocated is spent as necessary on the Dublin City Farm Project and where any surplus remains, it shall be expended on other community projects in areas adjacent to the Port and the City generally. The structure for the delivery of the funding and for the development of the City Farm will need to be confirmed in an agreement between Dublin City Council and Dublin Port Company.”
3.15 As the final location of the site on which this use would be located will be decided by Dublin City Council and not the Applicant, it is not appropriate for the Applicant to provide a site location plan as has been requested.
Conclusions 3.16 The report of the Planning Authority concludes that it is the opinion of the City Council that the proposed development is in accordance with the polices and objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 and welcomes the intention to deliver the project by redeveloping existing infrastructure and by increasing the productivity of existing port lands without any major reclamation works26. The Applicant acknowledges these views. It is highlighted to the Board that the application was noted by the elected members at the Central Area Committee Meeting which took place on 10th September 2019, and no additional comments were made in relation to the subject application or the Planning Authority’s Report27 submitted to the Board.
Response to Submissions and Observations 3.17 The Board circulated 13 no. submissions and observations made by or on behalf of certain prescribed bodies and various parties on the application for permission for the MP2 Project. These are listed in Appendix D to this statement. This statement responds to the issues raised in the submissions and observations made with respect to planning policy and the planning process applicable to development. Other aspects raised in the submissions and observations will be addressed by other
24 Planning Authority’s Report, page 25 25 Planning Authority’s Report, page 26 26 Planning Authority’s Report, page 27 27 Planning Authority’s Report, page iii
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 7 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
members of the project team within the statements of evidence delivered at this oral hearing. Accordingly, the topics and relevant submissions are set out below.
Issue: Land Use and Spatial Planning Policy
Submission: Docklands Business Forum Point 1 3.18 The Docklands Business Forum questions the location of the proposed development within the current planning context. The submission highlights that it is a stated objective of Dublin City Council to promote residential development and attract residents back into the city centre including families. The Docklands Business Forum contends that this objective seems incompatible with the strain on the urban infrastructure that the development will cause. The submission proports that the continued location of the port in the city centre is an unresolved issue for many and for some a controversial one.
Response: 3.19 It is submitted to the Board that the prevailing context within which the proposed development will be assessed is clear at all levels of the policy hierarchy. Given Ireland’s island nature, infrastructure is based on the effectiveness of airport and port connections. 3.20 Dublin Port is a core port on the TEN-T network and is a designated node on the North Sea- Mediterranean Core Network Corridor28. The criteria used by the European Commission are broadly similar to those used in identifying the Ports of National Significance (Tier 1) in the NPP. As set out in the NPP, Dublin is a Tier 1 Port in the national port hierarchy. 3.21 The NPF acknowledges NPP and the national ports hierarchy and recognises that the long-term international trend in ports and shipping is towards increased consolidation of resources in order to achieve optimum efficiencies of scale.
3.22 Supported by the NPP, the Dublin Port Masterplan seeks to provide a clear framework to allow essential projects to be brought forward through the consenting process and to be constructed in time to meet demand. The Masterplan also indicates to all the stakeholders within the port how Dublin Port will be developed to meet their needs in the years ahead. It is highlighted to the Board that there is specific support for the Masterplan within Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 under policies SC929 and CEE23(iii)30.
3.23 As set out in the Planning Report31 and the EIAR32 the proposed development of the MP2 Project complies with the stated aims of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 as well as the Z7 zoning objective, as it provides for port-related facilities and activities which are permitted uses. This has been confirmed in the Planning Authority’s Report to the Board33. Indeed, it is noted to the Board that ‘residential’ use is not listed as permissible or open for consideration within the Z7 land use zoning objective34.
3.24 In response to the Docklands Business Forum submission a list is provided to the Board detailing all instances in the Planning Authority’s Report where support for the MP2 Project is stated. This is provided in Appendix E 35.
3.25 Importantly, the Planning Authority in its report recognises that the current proposal which will facilitate an increase in the capacity in the port will ultimately enhance the economic life of the city, which the Planning Authority’s Report states is a core aim of the Development Plan36.
28 Figure 1-1 Planning Report, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure_en 29 Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 59 30 Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 100,347 31 MP2 Project Planning Report, page 50-55 32 EIAR Volume 2 chapter 2 section 2.3, 33 Planning Authority Report, page 25 34 Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 244 35 Appendix E 36 Planning Authority’s Report, page 24
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 8 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
3.26 Policy is clear regarding the role and function of Dublin Port. The MP2 Project consists of the next phase of this capital infrastructure programme at Dublin Port and is consistent with all levels of the policy and spatial planning framework.
Submission: Dublin Docklands Forum Point 2 3.27 The Dublin Docklands Forum submit concerns with respect to the proposals for the interpretive heritage zone and its commercial viability.
Response: 3.28 The proposal for the interpretive heritage zone is not a commercial leisure use. As part of its Soft Values Project Strategic Framework, DPC proposes to create an interpretive heritage zone to accommodate an architectural installation marking the evolution of the port’s development and its easternmost point on the north side of the Liffey Channel at the end of the permitted Port Greenway (Ref. Ref. 3084/16). This installation will commemorate the Eastern Breakwater Pier Head.
3.29 This heritage zone will accommodate an artistic interpretation of what once stood on the Eastern Breakwater and signal the end of the port’s expansion eastward. Further detail on the proposed design and the contribution the installation will make to the evolving development of the port is provided in the Industrial Heritage Impact & Compensation Planning & Design Report prepared by MOLA Architects included as part of the application.
3.30 It is submitted to the Board that this installation is not a commercial use and will enhance the recreation and leisure experience for those frequenting the Port Greenway. In this regard the submission from the Dublin Docklands Forum on this issue is without merit.
Submission: Port of Cork Point 1 3.31 The submission from the Port of Cork cautions that the DPC assumptions, regarding share of national volumes in the two unitised cargo modes arising as a result of the ports location close to the centre of the largest population concentration in the country, should not assume that the existing distribution of population between the Dublin region and the rest of the Country will be maintained in the long term.
Response: 3.32 National Policy Objective 1a37 of the NPF states that the projected level of population and employment growth in the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly area will be at least matched by that of the Northern and Western and Southern Regional Assembly areas combined. This means that just under 50% of the overall projected growth will take place in the Eastern and Midland Region up to 2040. Projections used in the Dublin Port Masterplan, also have a horizon to 2040, and as set out in the Project Rationale38 are consistent with growth estimates used in the NPF.
Submission: Port of Cork Point 2 3.33 Within the submission made by the Port of Cork it is contended that with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit, the corridors set out in the TEN-T may alter and transfer some Ro-Ro services from Dublin Port to the Port of Cork.
Response: Port of Cork Point 2 3.34 As set out in the Planning Report39 submitted with the application for permission the EU Treaties will cease to apply to the United Kingdom from the date of entry into force of a withdrawal agreement or failing that, two years after that notification unless the period is extended. Once the withdrawal process is completed, parts of the alignment of the North Sea – Mediterranean Core Network Corridor related to the United Kingdom will become obsolete. Recognising this, Regulation (EU) 2019/49540, amending Regulation (EU) 1316/2013, provides for a realignment of the corridor to ensure maritime connections
37 NPF, page 26 38 MP2 Project Planning Report Appendix A Project Rationale, page 22 39 MP2 Project Planning Report, page 44 40 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/495/oj
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 9 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
between Ireland and the other EU countries on the North Sea Core Network Corridor once the United Kingdom leaves the EU. This realignment will ensure clarity and certainty for infrastructure planning.
Submission: Irish Academy of Engineers 3.35 This submission states that the Irish Academy of Engineers is conscious of international trends in port development suggesting that the requirement to locate adjoining cities no longer applies and most ports have moved or developed some significant distance from major cities.
Response: 3.36 The designation, role and function of Dublin Port is unambiguous, and the policy is clearly stated at all levels of the EU, national, regional and local planning policy hierarchy supporting its future development41.
3.37 NPP states that sustainable development of the port sector depends to a large extent on the relationship and interaction between the sector and the planning system. Ports act as international gateways, generate large volumes of traffic, and are key centres of economic activity. The NPP continues that “while the important role of ports in facilitating economic activity is frequently overlooked, their social role in shaping a city’s development and indeed its history is often completely overshadowed by the seemingly conflicting demands of a port’s development and the development of the city”42.
3.38 The position rank and role of Dublin Port is a key attribute of Dublin City as the economic driver of the State and international gateway. The location and role of Dublin Port is supported at all levels of the spatial planning policy hierarchy in this regard, all of which are set out in the Planning Report accompanying the application for permission. It is respectfully submitted to the Board that this point made by the Irish Academy of Engineers is without merit and is not relevant to this project.
Issue: Duration of Permission
Submission from Peadar Farrell 3.39 Mr Farrell contends that a permission of this duration is not appropriate in the interests of future populations and their opportunity to comment.
Response 3.40 The horizon of the Dublin Port Masterplan is 2040. Within this period a number of significant projects need to be completed in order to provide essential nationally important port capacity in line with both Government policy, notably NPP and the NPF, and with EU transport policy, TEN-T. These policy documents in themselves cover lengthy timeframes in order to ensure continuity for ongoing and future infrastructure investments and provide clarity and certainty for strategic infrastructure planning. 3.41 The fundamental approach of the Dublin Port Masterplan to providing capacity in Dublin Port is to maximise the utilisation of brownfield lands rather than the need to resort to an infill/reclamation option. Redeveloping existing brownfield sites which are already in operation and which need to remain operational is a complex process.
3.42 The application seeks permission for an appropriate period of 15 years in order ensure that the entire strategic infrastructure development as proposed is assessed holistically as a project and implemented as a single project pursuant to a single grant of permission.
3.43 The areas in which construction works are proposed as part of the MP2 Project are in daily use and are to cater for ongoing growth in throughput volumes. DPC is currently constructing the ABR Project (PL 29N.PA0034) through a series of discrete work packages designed to allow existing operators and operations to continue with minimum disruption. This same approach will be necessary with the MP2 Project.
3.44 There is an overriding imperative to ensure that Dublin Port continues to operate effectively during the construction process to allow different terminals to operate without any loss of service and to ensure 41 MP2 Project Planning Report page 50-55 and EIAR Vol 2 chapter 2, section 2.3 42 National Ports Policy 2013, page 46
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 10 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
that the Port remains viable. Only minor works may be carried out in tandem while others will need to be carried out sequentially where works for one element cannot commence until an earlier related element is concluded. Works to berths must occur on a sequential basis as the port must remain open on a continuous basis and therefore simultaneous works to berths is not a construction programming option available to the Applicant. Further detail on the operation of the port during the construction phase is provided in the witness statement delivered to the oral hearing by the Dublin Port Harbour Master Capt. Micheal McKenna.
3.45 At the outset of the project, based on its experience with respect to the delivery of the ABR Project, DPC’s best estimate was that the MP2 Project works could be completed by 2032.
3.46 A longer construction phase is an inevitable consequence of DPC’s preferred sustainable approach to the brownfield development of the existing Dublin Port estate rather than the less sustainable greenfield development at another location where construction timelines could be far shorter and more certain.
3.47 Unforeseen circumstances can impact on the timing of planned project works therefore construction timescales are liable to change in response to such circumstances. Such circumstances may result in time lags to when phases can commence should necessary consents not be in place. Such an example has been borne out since the application for permission was made to the Board whereby previously the Foreshore Licence could be sought from the Foreshore Unit in tandem with the permission for development, the Foreshore Licence application will now not be considered until such time as permission from the Board is confirmed.
3.48 Typically, a Foreshore Licence can take 12 months to secure once an application has been submitted, following which design development, procurement and compliance agreements will be entered into prior to the commencement of development. These items in combination result in the need for the appropriate period of the permission for the MP2 Project to have a 15 year duration in order to ensure a sufficient level of time within which to complete the development.
3.49 DPC believes therefore that it is preferable to address this reality at the outset and conduct the assessment of the MP2 Project on this basis.
3.50 In summary, the requested permission of 15 years is required for a number of reasons: This significant project needs to be completed in order to provide essential nationally important port capacity in line with both Government policy, notably NPP and the NPF, and with EU transport policy, TEN-T, which in themselves cover longer time horizons to allow for larger infrastructural projects to be planned, secured, funded and progressed. DPC has set out a Masterplan within which projects can be completed, the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 contains specific policies supporting the Masterplan43. The overriding imperative to ensure that Dublin Port continues to operate effectively during construction will require works to be staged in distinct phases. The works are to, a large extent, sequential and connected – one element cannot commence until an earlier related element is concluded. The works are all connected and need to be determined and assessed as a whole by the Board, rather than be subject to separate applications. Construction experience in Dublin Port in recent years shows that programme changes are both inevitable and difficult to predict.
3.51 Specific and comprehensive mitigation measures, through scheduling for avoidance and limiting overlap of projects and sensitive periods with respect to environmentally designated areas adjacent to the site, have been prescribed to ensure that there will be little impact due to cumulative effects. This
43 Policy SC9 and Policy CEE23(iii), Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022, page 59, 100, 347
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 11 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
is reflected in the construction programme for implementation of the MP2 Project as set out in Chapter 3, Volume 2 of the EIAR.
3.52 All relevant environmental assessments in respect of the MP2 Project undertaken at this stage are based on a 15 year construction period. These assessments are presented within the EIAR and NIS submitted with this application in order to enable the Board, as the competent authority, to complete the assessments required by the Habitats and EIA Directives.
4 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 The MP2 Project is a vital component in facilitating goods and passenger movement in an efficient manner. It is fundamental to meeting capacity projections up to 2040 and will ensure the port has the necessary infrastructure to meet developments in shipping internationally where larger ships are becoming the industry norm. The proposed development complies with all statutory planning guidelines and policies at European national, regional and local levels. The MP2 Project, which represents the next phase of the implementation of the Dublin Port Masterplan, positively addresses the responsibilities placed on DPC to provide international marine connectivity vital to the Irish economy in a manner which is wholly consistent with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 12 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Appendix A
Updated Planning History Relevant to the Proposed Development
Subject Site The planning history of the application site is set out below and illustrated in Figure 1. There have been a number of approvals for development and upgrading of facilities within Dublin Port some of which are completed, under construction or about to commence works. The most relevant planning history for the site is listed below.
Figure 1: Dublin Port MP2 Project Planning History44
Dublin Gateway Project – Reference PL 29N.PA0007 DPC sought permission under Board Ref. 29N.PA0007, a SID, for the Gateway Project, which consisted of an extension of 21 hectares of landfill to the east of the port to provide for both additional open container storage, handling areas, new quayside facilities and berth. The application was refused permission by the Board in 2010 for the following reason:
“The proposed development is partly within the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA), designated under the Birds Directive. On the basis of the submissions made in relation to the proposed development, it is considered that
a) The significance of the permanent loss of wetland habitat from the pSPA arising from the proposed development has not been clearly or adequately established,
b) the full extent of long-term changes to the morphology, sediment regime and consequent impacts on the benthic food resource within the Tolka Estuary as a
44 Based on Dublin City Council Online Planning Search
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 13 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
result of hydrodynamic changes generated by the proposed development has not been adequately established, and
c) the significance of the development site for use by bird species that are qualifying interests for the pSPA has not been clearly established, and
d) the significance of the permanent loss of the benthic food resource as a result of the proposed development has not been adequately established.
Accordingly, An Bord Pleanála is not satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary pSPA and is not satisfied that it would not adversely affect the natural heritage of Dublin Bay, contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”
ABR Project – Board Ref. PL 29N.PA0034 DPC was granted permission subject to conditions on 8th July 2015 for the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and Berths 52 and 53 together with associated works in Dublin Port and the dredging of the Liffey approach channel, under section 37E of the Planning and Development Acts, a SID. The permitted development may be broken into 3 no. parts: works to Alexandra Basin, works to Berth 52 and 53, and works to the Liffey Channel. Each element is summarised as follows
Alexandra Basin:
Excavation and restoration of historic Graving Dock No. 1; Infilling of Graving Dock No. 2 (6,055sq.m); Demolition of the bulk jetty (3,200sq.m); North Wall Quay extension (21,700sq.m); Extension of Alexandra Quay West (130m); Construction of a new Ro-Ro jetty (273m) and 3no. Ro-Ro ramps; and Dredging of 470,000m.cu of contaminated material, to a depth of -10.0m CD over an area of 194,000m.cu within the redeveloped Alexandra Basin, and its remediation.
Berth 52 and 53:
Demolition of existing Berths 52 and 53; Construction of a jetty at Berth 52 (500sq.m); Concrete Dolphin at Berth 53 (500sq.m); The construction of: – New river berth at Berths 52/53 (300m); – New 75m mooring jetty at new river berth; – New 40m long mooring jetty to extend existing Berth 49, 50m long; Infilling of the Terminal 5 Ro-Ro basin (45,650sq.m); Raising of existing levels by 1.4m over an area of 95,000sq.m; and Dredging of new river berth to -10.0m CD.
Liffey Channel:
Construction of a marina protection structure to a height of +7.0m CD and a length of 220m on the south side of the river channel.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 14 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Dredging of the shipping channel to a depth of -10m CD from a point 55m to the east of the East link bridge, to a location in the vicinity of Dublin Bay, a total distance of 10,320m. This approval is now being implemented by the DPC. The relevant part of the site layout plan to the subject site is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: ABR Project Berth 52 – Ref. PL29N.PA003445
Dublin Port Internal Road Network – Reg. Ref. 3084/16 DPC was granted planning permission on 14th September 2016 for the works to the port's private internal road network and includes works on public roads at East Wall Road, Bond Road and Alfie Byrne Road. The development includes inter alia:
Construction of new roads and enhancements to existing roads within the Dublin Port estate north of River Liffey; Construction of enhanced landscaping and amenity route along the northern boundary;
45 Based on Board Ref. PL29N.PA0034 Drawing IBM0498-GA-017
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 15 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Construction of new pedestrian and cycle overbridge and underpass at Promenade Road; Ancillary construction works, including site clearance, demolitions, earthworks, pavement construction, construction of verges, modifications to accesses, construction of new and amended drainage services, diversion and installation of utility services, boundary works, installation of road markings and signs and accommodation works; Construction of minor works to the junctions of East Wall Road with Tolka Quay Road and East Wall Road with Alexandra Road. An amendment to this planning permission was granted under Reg. Ref. 2684/17 in July 2017. This development is now being implemented by the DPC. The site layout plan is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Permitted Dublin Port Internal Road Network46
Other Planning Permissions within the Subject Site A number of other planning permissions have been secured from Dublin City Council within the subject site. The locations are illustrated on Figure 1 and summarised in Table 1 below.
46 Based on Dublin City Council Reg. Ref. 3084/16
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 16 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Table 1: Planning History
Planning Ref Summary of Development 3221/14 Topaz Topaz Energy Ltd was granted planning permission on 14th November 2014 for the development will consist of modifications to previously approved planning permission, Reference 3171/12. The modifications will consist of the following: 1. Re-designation of Tank 6 (T406) to store Jet A 1/Kerosene instead of Ethanol; 2. Re-designation of Tanks 7 and 8 (T407 and T408) to store ethanol instead of unleaded gasoline (ULG); 3. Tanks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to be located in one Bund instead of two bunds; 4. Tanks 7, 8 and 9 to be double-skin tanks with a single bund wall instead of single-skin tanks with two bund walls; 5. Deletion of the 3m high secondary containment (inner) concrete wall around Tanks 7, 8 and 9; 6. Reduction of the height of the tertiary containment concrete walls of the bunds and of the perimeter walls from 3m to 2m. There will also be palisade fencing on the boundary. These changes will reduce the storage capacity for Class I liquids by approximately 30%. The total storage capacity of all hydrocarbons will be unchanged. The development will be an Upper Tier Seveso site and comes within the meaning of Part 11 of the planning regulations. 2310/15 DPC was granted planning permission on 8th July 2015 for the development will consist of the erection of new fencing fixed to the existing boundary walls to bring the overall height of the boundaries to 4m, the erection of new 4m high fences in place of existing defective or inadequate fencing and walls, the erection of new replacement gates to a height of 4m, the erection of 16 no. 30m high lighting masts and luminaries, the incorporation of 3 Branch Road South (a private road) into the adjoining quayside goods handling area, the construction of new re-enforced concrete surfacing and new replacement drainage and water supply system and associated ancillary works. 2596/15 Breakwater Road South DPC was granted planning permission on 10th July 2015 for relocation of the existing vehicular and pedestrian entrances off Breakwater Road South to a new location off Breakwater Road South, alterations to the existing layout of the road. This approval has been implemented by the DPC. 3022/15 Promenade Road DPC was granted planning permission on 4th September 2015 for the development will consist of: (a) the removal of a vehicular gate fronting Promenade Road, Dublin Port, Dublin 3 and replacement with new 4m high fence. (b) the erection of new 4m high fences in place of defective or inadequate fencing on three sides of the site. (c) the incorporation of the site into the adjacent site located to the east and (d) the construction of new re-enforced concrete surfacing and new replacement drainage and water system and associated ancillary works. 2034/16 Branch Road North DPC was granted planning permission on 13th April 2016 for retention of development for alterations to previously granted permissions under P.A. Reg. Ref. 2310/15 and P.A. Reg. Ref. 3022/15 and consists of: (a) On the Promenade Road frontage: a 4m high fence and a 9m wide roller access gate. (b) On the eastern side: added fencing to the existing boundary wall to bring it to an overall height of 4m. (c) On the No.2 Branch road frontage: a 9m wide roller access gate and 4m high fence. (e) On the western side: a 4m high fence 2199/17 Tedcastle Operations building and Substation Tedcastles Oil Products were granted planning permission on 18th August 2017 for the construction of a two-storey operations building of 432sq.m, an ESB substation of 21.8sq.m with ancillary transformer and generator and site clearance works. The ground floor of the proposed operations building of 216sq.m will accommodate welfare facilities, supervisors control room, conference room, electric switch room and stores. The first floor of 216sq.m will contain the company offices. These and any associated development and works to be undertaken at Yard 1, Promenade Road, Parish of Saint Thomas, Dublin Port, Dublin 1, which is a SEVESO site. 2429/17 Demolition of buildings and Provision of Yard DPC was granted planning permission on 11th September 2017 for the demolition of 3 no. existing buildings comprising a blockwork structure of c. 283sq.m, a temporary modular structure of c. 303sq.m and a portal frame shed building of c. 112sq.m and removal of all structural and infrastructural elements, vegetation, plinths, fences etc. A new concrete surface treatment is to be provided across entire site. The new yard facility includes CCTV, new lighting and new approx. 4m high security fence to northern, eastern and southern (Tolka Quay Road) boundaries. The development also includes the closure of the existing (eastern) vehicular entrance and widening of the existing western entrance to provide a 12m sliding gate on Tolka Quay Road. The subject site is to the northwest of the MP2 site boundary. This approval is now being implemented by the Dublin Port Company.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 17 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Planning Ref Summary of Development 4216/17 Floating Dock Section DPC was granted planning permission on 16th February 2018 for floating dock sections (pontoons) with an area of c.321sq.m, access walkway and removal of internal structural and infrastructural elements including vegetation, plinths, fences and bollards; new access roadway. The pontoon shall provide enhanced docking facilities for tug boats operating in the port. This approval has been implemented. 3143/18 Vehicle service/maintenance facility and office accommodation DPC was granted planning permission on 31st August 2018 for the construction of a vehicle service/maintenance facility and office accommodation contained in one building (approx. 946sq.m) incorporating vehicle service/maintenance bays, a two storey office area of 260sq.m with offices, meeting/training room, canteen and changing area, toilets, building signage. Associated site works including fencing, 55 no. car parking spaces, reconfiguration and widening of existing entrances/exits and connection to existing services on Tolka Quay Road. The subject site is directly to the north of and adjacent to the MP2 site boundary. This application has not yet been implemented. 3314/18 Dublin Ferryport Terminals Access DPC was granted planning permission on 18th September 2018 for the upgrade of access to the Dublin Port Operations Centre and the Dublin Ferryport Terminals (DFT). This application is being implemented 3540/18 Demolition of Calor Offices and Provision of Yard DPC was granted planning permission on 18th October 2018 for the demolition of a single storey office building (785sq.m); maintenance shed building (840sq.m); reinforced concrete bund and steel tank (42sq.m); boiler room building; and all associated general site clearance. The development also comprises hard surfacing to provide a yard for storage across the extent of the site. The proposed development shall facilitate the consolidation of Calor activities within the port lands. This approval has been implemented. 3269/18 Yard Upgrade DPC was granted planning permission on 6th November 2018 for the removal of plinths, fences and vegetation etc; new pavement construction including underground drainage and electricity infrastructure; 2 no. CCTV poles (18m high); new lighting (including 2 no. lighting columns 30m high and 10 no. lighting columns 12m high); new 4m high security fence on western and southern boundaries; new 7.2m high fire wall on the eastern boundary and; a 5m sliding gate as fire access on the south eastern corner of the site. All development to take place on a site approx. 0.3 hectares. The application is for a 10 year planning permission. The development is located on a Former Calor Site, Breakwater Road North, Dublin Port, Dublin 1. This application has not yet been implemented. 3488/18 Asahi demolition and Provision of Yard Dublin Port Company was granted planning permission on 14th November 2018 for the demolition of redundant storage tank including associated pipework and general site clearance. The area is to be hard surfaced to provide a yard for storage across the extent of the site. CCTV poles, new lighting and a new 4m high security fence on all boundaries is proposed. The development also includes the closure of the existing site access and provision of a 12m wide sliding gate access on Breakwater Road North. This development has not yet commenced. 3638/18 Interim Unified Passenger Terminal DPC was granted planning permission on 15th January 2019 for the upgrade of Terminal 1 and 2 facilities including consolidated vehicle check-in facilities and revised stacking and circulation arrangements. The proposed development also includes the provision of State Services facility for control and inspections of passengers and freight. This application is being implemented. 4250/18 ESB Substation Demolition and Provision DPC was granted planning permission on 6th June 2019 for the for the demolition of an existing ESB Substation (approx. 25sq.m and 3.2m height), general site clearance, and construction of new ESB Substation building (approx. 40sq.m and 3.1m height) at Crosbie’s Yard, Dublin Port. This development has not yet commenced 3176/19 Ramp and Approachway to Berth 49 DPC was granted permission on the 9th September 2019 for the development of an additional approach way (c.189m long, c.10m wide) and ramp in addition to office and staff facilities buildings at Berth 49. This development has not yet commenced. 4115/19 Alexandra Road, Dublin Port On the 1st October 2019 , Lagan Materials Ltd. Applied for planning permission for a development consisting of the removal of a redundant fire water storage tank of 7.6m in diameter and 7.5m in height with a volume of approximately 340m3 and the installation of a new bitumen storage tank of 3.37m in diameter and 17.3m in height with a volume of approximately 100m3. A decision has yet to be made.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 18 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Planning Ref Summary of Development 3859/19 Ocean Pier and Alexandra Quay East On 18th October 2019, DPC was notified by DCC a decision to grant permission for a development consisting of demolition of a redundant warehouse and installation of a substation, fencing and gantries. This development has not yet commenced. 4483/19 Terminal 4 North Lands, Dublin Port, Dublin 1 DPC submitted an application to DCC on 18th November 2019 for the demolition of 10 no. redundant buildings (c. 6830sqm) and removal of temporary structures at Terminal 4 North Lands, Dublin Port. A decision is yet to be made.
Developments in the Surrounding Area There are several existing and/or approved projects in the vicinity which have been identified that have the potential to interact with the MP2 project. These are listed in Table 2 below.
Table 1: Planning History in the Surrounding Area
Planning Ref Summary of Development 3140/14 Ship to Shore Gantry Burke Shipping Group was granted planning permission on 22nd October 2014 for a ship to shore (STS) gantry crane and all ancillary works. The approval has been implemented. 3452/15 Port Precinct Permission for development at Port Centre, on a 1.7ha site bounded by Alexandra Road & East Wall Road, Dublin 1. The development will consist of landscape and associated civil engineering works to the Port Centre Precinct to contribute to the public realm and to accommodate the relocation of the existing carpark from the Alexandra Road site boundary to an area south of the Port Centre Building bounded by the East Wall Road. 2193/16 Lagan Bitumen Site Doyle Shipping Group was granted planning permission on 11th May 2016 for the refurbishment of an existing 5-storey office building including new external facade insulation and cladding system, elevation alterations, roof plant and roof plant screening, building mounted signage, demolition of an existing one storey side extension and sundry associated works. 2130/18 Pigeon House Road Hammond Lane Metal Company Ltd was granted planning permission on 30th March 2018 for the demolition of existing two-storey administration building (534sq.m); construction of a new two-storey building (563sq.m) containing an administration area, staff facilities and a non- ferrous metals recovery area; 2 no. 18m long weighbridges; 1 no. dry wheelwash; car parking; all associated site development works all on a site of 1.79 ha. This application relates to a development which comprises an activity for which an Industrial Emissions License under Part IV of the EPA 1992 (as amended) is required. PL29S.301798 Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant Irish Water was granted planning permission for strategic infrastructure development to further progress the upgrade of the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant (WwTP) on 24th April 2019. The permission provides for works required to facilitate the use of Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS) technology, to omit the previously permitted long sea outfall tunnel and to upgrade the sludge treatment facilities at Ringsend, Dublin 4, and to provide for a Regional Biosolids Storage Facility in Newtown, Dublin 11. The proposed development at Ringsend is to the south of the MP2 site boundary, south of the River Liffey. 4507/18 Cruise Ship Turnaround Facilities DPC was granted temporary planning permission on the 25th April 2019 for 5 years for facilities to cater for cruise ship operators to include: a marquee (c.2,250sq.m) 8m in height, 300 car parking spaces, bus and car drop off area, fencing 2m in height, mini-roundabout, 6m access off Tolka Quay Road and all associated site development works at Tolka Quay Road; and; a marquee (c.1750sq.m) c.8m in height at Ocean Pier. The approval has been implemented 4521/18 Terminal 4 Bridge DPC was granted planning permission on the 10th May 2019 for a 150m long, 13m wide two lane vehicular bridge with access ramps over Alexandra Road connecting the CDL yard and Terminal 4, associated lighting columns of up to 8m in height and all associated site development works. The subject site is to the west of the MP2 Project site boundary. This application has not yet been implemented 3711/18 Berth 47A Pigeon House Road DPC were granted permission on the 12th August 2019 for a development consisting of: construction of a bridge to span the existing cooling water outfall channel, adjacent to Pigeon House Road; construction of a new junction opposite the entrance to the Ecocem Ireland Plant;
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 19 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Planning Ref Summary of Development hard surfacing; site drainage and outfall; the use of lands for the storage of port-related maintenance and service equipment, construction project materials, contractor's site compound and project cargo; amendments to boundaries; and all associated services and site development works. F16A/0598 Dublin Inland Port DPC was granted planning permission by Fingal County Council on 23rd April 2017 at Coldwinters, St Margaret’s, County Dublin for development of a 40m access road off Maple Avenue; a gated entrance incorporating two large feature walls of 6m in height; installation of a landmark container sculpture at the new entrance; the erection of a 3m palisade security boundary fence; signage; and new external lighting.
F18A/0139 Dublin Inland Port On 25th January 2019 DPC was granted planning permission by Fingal County Council for development for an extension to internal access road from Maple Avenue with associated works including public lighting and the development of 2 no. plots generally for industrial, warehouse, storage and logistic use. This development has not yet commenced. FW19A/0101 Dublin Inland Port Dublin Port Company were notified by FCC a decision to grant permission on 14th October 2019 for the development of Plot 8 for storage and logistic use comprising stacked shipping container storage and ancillary uses. This development has not yet commenced 305687 Office of Public Works Dublin Port Office of Public Works Brexit Unit sought State Development Consultation on the 17th October 2019 for shared services facility comprising of new warehouse facilities and related structures to house cargo unloading areas, inspection bays, live animal storage facilities and other ancillary spaces and associated works at Dublin Port. Case is due to be decided by 28th February 2020
DPC has been able to review and take on board issues raised by Dublin City Council, the Board, other prescribed authorities and interested bodies in respect of the development projects and proposals listed above where available.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 20 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Appendix B Reg Ref 3084/16 Dublin Port Internal Road Network Decision
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 21 Planning & Property Development Department Dublin City Council, Block 4, Floor 3, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8
An Roinn Pleanála & Forbairt Maoine Bloc 4, Urlár 3, Oifigí na Cathrach, An Ché Adhmaid, Baile Átha Cliath 8
T: (01) 222 2288 / F: (01) 222 2271
Roughan & O'Donovan Ltd. Arena House Arena Road Sandyford Industrial Estate Dublin 18
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT A DO AM NT AND SHOA D B P A D CITH DOAR TIT D DS
Application No. 3084/16 Registration Date 10-Jun-2016 Decision Date 04-Aug-2016 Decision Order No 2632 Date of Final rant 14-Sep-2016 rant Order No 31 7 Location Dublin ort, Ale andra Road, Dublin 1 roposal The development comprises of aorks to the ort's private internal road netaork, and includes aorks on public roads at East Wall Road, Bond Road and Alfie Byrne Road. The development aill consist of: a) Construction of nea roads and enhancements to e isting roads aithin the Dublin ort estate north of River Liffeyb b) Construction of enhanced landscaping and amenity route along the northern boundaryb c) Construction of nea pedestrian and cycle overbridge at romenade Roadb d) Construction of access ramps to pedestrian and cycle overbridge at romenade Roadb e) Construction of nea pedestrian and cycle underpass at romenade Roadb f) Construction of 11 no. nea signage gantriesb g) Ancillary construction aorks, including site clearance, demolitions, earthaorks, pavement construction, construction of verges, modifications to accesses, construction of nea and amended drainage services, diversion and installation of utility services, installation of road markings and signs and accommodation aorksb h) Works to e isting boundaries and construction of nea boundariesb i) Construction of minor aorks to the cunctions of East Wall Road aith Tolka Quay Road and East Wall Road aith Ale andra Road. The application is for a 10 year planning permission. Applicant Dublin ort Company Application Type ermission
NOTIFI ATION OF RANT OF P RMISSION
P RMISSION for the development described above has been granted under the lanning & Development Acts 2000 (as amended) subcect to the folloaing conditions.
onEitionFGH anE ReaGonG Ior onEitionFGH
NOT2perm 3084/16 Planning & Property Development Department Dublin City Council, Block 4, Floor 3, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8
An Roinn Pleanála & Forbairt Maoine Bloc 4, Urlár 3, Oifigí na Cathrach, An Ché Adhmaid, Baile Átha Cliath 8
T: (01) 222 2288 / F: (01) 222 2271
1. Insofar as the lanning & Development Act 2000 (as amended) and the Regulations made thereunder are concerned, the development shall be carried out in accordance aith the plans, particulars and specifications lodged aith the application, save as may be reduired by the conditions attached hereto. For the avoidance of doubt, this permission shall not be construed as approving any development shoan on the plans, particulars and specifications, the nature and e tent of ahich has not been adeduately stated in the statutory public notices.
Reason: To comply aith permission regulations.
2. This permission shall, in accordance aith the application, be for a period of ten years from the date of this order.
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
3. The folloaing details shall be submitted to the lanning Authority and aritten agreement obtained prior to commencement of development: a) Details of the materials to be used in the construction of the bridge, to include any lighting proposed. b) Details of the paving to be used in the pedestrian/cycleaay.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
4. The developer shall comply aith the reduirements set out in the Codes of ractice from the Drainage Division, the Roads Streets & Traffic Department and the Noise & Air ollution Section.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development.
. The developer shall comply aith the folloaing archaeological reduirements: a) The developer shall retain a suitably dualified licensed-archaeologist to advise regarding the archaeological implications of site clearance, demolition and/or construction methodology and to make appropriate recommendations for mitigation including detailed survey as necessary. b) The developer shall alloa for the resolution of archaeology (both on site and necessary post e cavation) in the procect budget and timetable. c) The developeres archaeologist shall undertake licensed archaeological monitoring of all demolition and sub-surface aorks associated aith the development including the breaking and
NOT2perm 3084/16 Planning & Property Development Department Dublin City Council, Block 4, Floor 3, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8
An Roinn Pleanála & Forbairt Maoine Bloc 4, Urlár 3, Oifigí na Cathrach, An Ché Adhmaid, Baile Átha Cliath 8
T: (01) 222 2288 / F: (01) 222 2271 removal of any floor slabs, levelling of ground etc. d) The archaeologist shall consult aith and foraard their fethod Statement in advance of commencement to the City Archaeologist. e) In the event of archaeological features being located in the course of the monitoring, the developer shall facilitate the archaeologist in fully recording such features, including if necessary the archaeological e cavation of such features. In the event of significant archaeological features on site, the archaeologist retained by the developer shall immediately contact the City Archaeologist. The City Archaeologist (in consultation aith the National fonuments Service, Department of Arts Heritage and aeltacht) shall determine the further archaeological resolution of the site. f) A aritten and digital report (on compact disc) containing the results of the archaeological monitoring shall be foraarded on completion to the City Archaeologist and National fonuments Service, Department Arts Heritage and aeltacht. g) Folloaing submission of the final report to the City Archaeologist, ahere archaeological material is shoan to be present, the archaeological paper archive shall be compiled in accordance aith the procedures detailed in the Dublin City Archaeological Archive uidelines (2008 Dublin City Council) and lodged aith the Dublin City Library and Archive, 138-44 earse Street, Dublin 2.
Reason: In the interest of preserving or preserving by record archaeological material likely to be damaged or destroyed in the course of development.
6. The folloaing reduirements of the Roads and Traffic lanning Division shall be complied aith: a) rior to commencement of development e act details regarding the proposed signalised crossing facilities at the East Wall Road / Ale andra Road cunction and at the East Wall Road / Bond Road cunction and the emergency access onto East Wall Road shall be agreed in ariting aith the ITS Section, Environment and Transportation Department, Dublin City Council. The applicant shall provide the full cost of all aorks as reduired. b) rior to commencement of development, the developer shall liaise aith the National Roads Authority and the operators of the Dublin Tunnel to prepare and agree a Construction Traffic fanagement Strategy for the Dublin Tunnel for the duration of the aorks. c) rior to the commencement of development all aorks proposed on the public road in particular to East Wall Road Bond Road and Alfie Byrne Road, shall be subcect to aritten agreement and approval from the Environment and Transportation Department. Any alterations to the public roads including footpaths, public lighting and all materials shall be agreed in ariting aith the Roads faintenance Division of Dublin City Council prior to commencement of development. Any aorks to the e isting public road and the public realm shall be carried out at the applicantes e pense at no cost to Dublin City Council and to the detailed reduirements of the Environment and Transportation Department.
NOT2perm 3084/16 Planning & Property Development Department Dublin City Council, Block 4, Floor 3, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8
An Roinn Pleanála & Forbairt Maoine Bloc 4, Urlár 3, Oifigí na Cathrach, An Ché Adhmaid, Baile Átha Cliath 8
T: (01) 222 2288 / F: (01) 222 2271 d) rior to commencement of development the Dublin ort Company shall liaise aith the National Transport Authority to agree in ariting the folloaingb
- Detailed design of the cycle infrastructure in order to ensure consistency aith the National cycle manual in particular hoa the proposed greenaay shall link up aith the e isting cycle infrastructure along East Wall Road, East oint Business ark and Alfie Byrne Road.
- E act details of the nea cycleaay along East Wall road and Bond Road.
- Investigate provision of additional cycle infrastructure as far as the entrances to the ferry terminals along Terminal Roads North and South.
- Clarify hoa prospective cyclists can access the terminal from the reenaay and the facilities provided along romenade Road. e) The area along East aall Road and Bond Road shall be taken in charge and details of all materials and public lighting shall be agreed in ariting aith the Roads faintenance Division of Dublin City Council prior to commencement of development. f) All costs incurred by Dublin City Council, including any repairs to the public road and services necessary as a result of the development, shall be at the e pense of the developer. g) rior to commencement of development, and on appointment of a contractor, a Construction fanagement lan shall be submitted to the planning authority for aritten agreement. This plan shall provide details of intended construction practice for the development, including traffic management, hours of aorking, noise management measures and off-site disposal of construction/demolition aaste. h) The developer shall be obliged to comply aith the reduirements set out in the Code of ractice.
Reason: In the interests of orderly development.
7. The folloaing reduirements of the Engineering Department (Drainage Division) shall be complied aith: a) The developer shall comply aith the reater Dublin Regional Code of ractice for Drainage Works gersion 6.0 (available from aaa.dublincity.ie Forms and Doanloads). b) The submitted flood risk impact assessment for the proposed development is not acceptable. The developer shall submit a full appropriate flood risk impact assessment for the proposed development, ahich identifies and proposes solutions to mitigate the potential risks from all sources including infrastructure failure, coastal, fluvial, pluvial and groundaater. Reference should be made to the DEHL /O W uidelines on the lanning rocess and Flood Risk fanagement published in November 200h. Flood risks from 30-year and 100-year storms shall be addressed.
NOT2perm 3084/16 Planning & Property Development Department Dublin City Council, Block 4, Floor 3, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8
An Roinn Pleanála & Forbairt Maoine Bloc 4, Urlár 3, Oifigí na Cathrach, An Ché Adhmaid, Baile Átha Cliath 8
T: (01) 222 2288 / F: (01) 222 2271
The developer shall confirm in ariting to Drainage Division that the development has been designed such that the risk of flooding to the development has been reduced as far as is reasonably practicable, and that the proposals do not increase the risk of flooding to any adcacent or nearby area (over the risk of flooding from a greenfield site). c) The development is to be drained on a completely separate foul and surface aater system. d) The applicant shall ensure approval is sought from the appropriate state authority for any proposed drainage aorks as part of this development prior to commencement of site aorks (i.e. foreshore licence/consent from DECL , aaste aater discharge licence or certificate of authorisation from the E A, etc.). e) The development shall incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems in the management of stormaater. f) There are e isting public seaers running through the site. The e act location of these pipelines must be accurately determined onsite prior to construction aork commencing. No additional loading shall be placed on these seaers. Any damage to it shall be rectified at the developer's e pense. g) All surface aater from the proposed Dublin ort netaork improvement procect shall drain to e isting private drainage system in the Dublin ort lands. The responsibility for the design of the private drainage system lies aith the developer/consultant.
Reason: In the interests of orderly and sustainable development.
8. (a) The site and building aorks reduired to implement the development shall only be carried out betaeen the hours of: fondays to Fridays - 7.00am to 6.00pm
Saturday - 8.00 a.m. to 2.00pm
Sundays and ublic Holidays - No activity on site.
(b) Deviation from these times aill only be alloaed in e ceptional circumstances ahere prior aritten approval has been received from Dublin City Council. Such approval may be given subcect to conditions pertaining to the particular circumstances being set by Dublin City Council.
Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adcoining residential occupiers. h. The site development aorks and construction aorks shall be carried out in such a manner as to ensure that the adcoining street(s) are kept clear of debris, soil and other material and if the need arises for cleaning aorks to be carried out on the adcoining public roads, the said cleaning aorks shall be carried out at the developers e pense.
NOT2perm 3084/16 Planning & Property Development Department Dublin City Council, Block 4, Floor 3, Civic Offices, Wood Quay, Dublin 8
An Roinn Pleanála & Forbairt Maoine Bloc 4, Urlár 3, Oifigí na Cathrach, An Ché Adhmaid, Baile Átha Cliath 8
T: (01) 222 2288 / F: (01) 222 2271
Reason: To ensure that the adcoining roadaays are kept in a clean and safe condition during construction aorks in the interests of orderly development.
NoteG to appli ant
TLe Ee iGion oI DMblin ity oMn il in reGpe t oI tLiG Eevelopment EoeG not imply or inIer any approval or rigLt to onne t to or EiG Large NaGteNater to tLe pMbli GeNer netNorO or tLe rigLt to onne t to tLe pMbli Nater GMpplyP TLe Appli ant GLall prior to tLe ommen ement oI Development maOe all ne eGGary arrangementG NitL anE get all ne eGGary approvalG Irom IriGL Cater in relation to NaGteNater EiG LargeG anE Nater onne tionGP
PleaGe IinE atta LeE an inIormation note Irom IriGL Nater regarEing tLe pMbli Nater & NaGte Nater netNorOP
NPBP it GLoMlE be learly MnEerGtooE tLat tLe granting oI planning permiGGion EoeG not relieve tLe Eeveloper oI tLe reGponGibility oI omplying NitL any reRMirementG MnEer otLer oEeG oI legiGlation aIIe ting tLe propoGal anE tLat a perGon GLall not be entitleE Golely by reaGon oI a planning permiGGion to arry oMt any EevelopmentP
SigneE on beLalI oI tLe DMblin ity oMn il Ior AGGiGtant LieI Se Mtive
Date TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
NOT2perm 3084/16 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Appendix C Figure 3-3
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 28
ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Appendix D Submissions and Observations
The Irish Academy of Engineers Clontarf Residents Association (c/o Deirdre Tobin) Docklands Business Forum Port of Cork Company Irish Water Inland Fisheries Ireland Birdwatch Ireland Donna Cooney Hollybrook Householders Association (c/o Peadar Buckley) Peadar Farrell Geological Survey of Ireland Transport Infrastructure Ireland Development Applications Unit of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 30 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
Appendix E Statements of Support for the MP2 Project within the Planning Authority’s Report Ref. Planning Authority Report Page no. 1. The Dublin City Development Plan is supportive of Dublin Port, recognising the important role it plays in the 8 economy and development of Dublin City and Region and is expressed in the policies and objectives of the Development Plan 2. The context is set out in chapter 4 which states that Dublin City Council fully supports and recognises the 8 important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the city and the region and the consequent need in economic competitiveness and employment terms to facilitate port activities which may involve port development or relocation in the longer term. 3. EIA Scoping: This approach is deemed to be satisfactory based on the existing legislative requirements 11 and to gain a comprehensive understanding of the environmental issues. 4. EIAR Content and Assessment: Chapters 1-3: The information provided by the applicant in these initial 12 chapters is considered adequate. 5. Chapter 4: The process for selection of the preferred option was described in detail and justified. This 12 approach is considered to be satisfactory. 6. Parks and Landscape Services reviewed Chapter 7 Biodiversity of the EIAR and largely concur with the 13 findings of the report 7. The Drainage Division Services has reviewed the application and has not raised any objection to the 17 proposed development, subject to conditions being imposed. 8. With regard to Chapter 10 Air Quality and Climate based on the information submitted the issue of air quality 17 and climate consideration appears to have been adequately addressed by the applicant. 9. With regard to Chapter 11 Noise and Vibration the planning authority considers the EIAR adequately 18 addresses the issues in relation to noise and vibrations. 10. With regard to Chapter 13 Traffic and Transportation the Transport Planning Division of the planning 20 authority is satisfied with the information submitted as part of the EIAR and with the principle of the proposed development overall. 11. It is clear that the pier headwall has significant heritage value and its loss, as currently proposed, is 21, regrettable. That being said it is clear the existing port is spatially confined, and the updated Port Masterplan 25 focuses upon the optimisation of the existing lands. It is considered that the extension to the permitted greenway and proposed heritage zone is considered to be a substantial mitigation and planning gain. Accordingly, on balance the proposed loss for the existing Pier head is considered acceptable.
12. Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual based on the submitted landscape and visual impact assessment, the 22 planning authority would concur with the findings of the LVIA that the proposed development would have a negligible change in the existing industrial character of the Port 13. While it is considered that the proposed development would result in a noticeable change in the receiving 22 environment, particularly when viewed from the south wall of Dublin Port, it is considered that the development would not result in significant negative landscape and visual effects, either individually or cumulatively 14. Marine Mammal Management Plan, the planning authority states that the proposed measures included in23,44 Appendix 19-6 Draft Marine Mammal Management Plan are considered to be acceptable. 15. Birds and Marine Ecology Management Plan, the planning authority states that the proposed measures 24, included in Appendix 19-7 Draft Marine Birds and Marine Ecology management Plan are considered to be 44 acceptable. 16. Having reviewed the Natura Impact Statement, which has been reviewed by Parks and Landscape Services, 24 the Planning Authority concur with the conclusions reached and have not reason to deviate from the results of the assessment. 17. In general terms, the Planning Authority has assessed the full submission including the drawings, various 24 reports, and impact statements and is generally satisfied and in agreement with their content and conclusions. 18. The currently proposal to increase capacity at the Port complies with the statement aims of the City 24 Development Plan as well as the zoning objective, as it provides for port-related facilities and activities which are permitted uses. 19. The Planning Authority also recognises that the current proposal which will facilitate an increase in capacity 24 in the port will ultimately enhance the economic life of the city which is a core aim of the City Development Plan. 20. The proposed development will minimise the extent of any physical impacts on the character and amenities 24 of the coastal zone/bay and will also allow for greater physical connectivity with the city and the reuse of existing resources. 21. The proposed development is considered to comply with the zoning provisions of the Dublin City 25 Development Plan 2016-2022.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 31 ABP 304888 19 SID: MP2 Project
22. It is considered that the current development would not prejudice the ongoing provision for and development 25 of cruise ship tourism and is therefore considered to be acceptable in this instance. 23. The Planning Authority recognises that Dublin Port is required the facilitate modern commercial ships which 25 are typified as large vessels with a deep draft, and suitable berthing facilities for mooring, loading and unloading are required for such vessels. 24. Parks and Landscape Services has welcomed the proposed installation, the ‘Marker’, to incorporate features 26 which will inform visitors of the port’s industrial, maritime and ecological heritage 25. The planning authority would concur with the findings of the LVIA that the development would have a 26 negligible impact on the existing industrial character of the port lands. Accordingly, no objection is raised to this element of the proposed development. 26. The Roads and Traffic Planning Division has assessed the proposal and while supportive of the proposed 26 development there are aspects of the proposal that require further agreement with the Roads and Traffic Department. Accordingly, it recommended that a condition be attached requiring the timing of road closures to be agreed with DCC. 27. The proposal for Community Gain (Appendix C) is acceptable in principle to DCC Parks and Landscape 26, Services. 45 28. It is the opinion of the City Council that the proposed development which aims to provide increased capacity 27 at the Port by increasing the depth and navigability of the access channel and providing more multi-purpose berths is in accordance with the policies and objectives of the Dublin City Development plan 2016-2022 and other relevant plans. 29. The intention to deliver the project by redeveloping existing infrastructure and by increasing the productivity 27 of existing port lands and without any major reclamation works (in contrast to previous proposals) is welcomed by the City Council. 30. It is acknowledged that the proposed development would further support the long term growth of Dublin 27 Port, and would enable the port to keep pace with developments in shipping internationally where larger ships are becoming the industry norm.
APPENDIX A 31. The Transportation Planning Division is satisfied with the information submitted as part of the EIAR and with 31 the principle of the proposed development overall. APPENDIX D 32. The Project rationale will involve an overall consolidation and intensification of development within the 39 existing extent of the Dublin Port Lands. This is in line with the DCC City Development Plan policies and objectives. This Rationale is preferable to previous strategies for the expansion of the Port Through reclamation, and the associated impacts this would present to the Natura 2000 site of Dublin Bay. 33. The LVIA is found to be acceptable, however it is recommended that a landscape/greening plan should be 43. prepared for the application site area. 34. With regard to the proposal to close the gates at the Greenway during tern feeding periods, this is acceptable 44 to DCC for biodiversity reasons.
Helena Gavin Planning Policy Page 32 STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR. ALAN BARR
EIAR ISSUES
1 Qualifications and Experience
1.1.1 I am Dr Alan Barr. I hold a First Class Honours Bachelor of Science degree and a PhD in Civil Engineering from Q ee U e , Belfast. My PhD was in the field of coastal hydrodynamics with a focus on renewable energy from waves.
1.1.2 I am a Chartered Engineer, Chartered Scientist and Chartered Water and Environmental Manager. I am a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers (FICE), Fellow of Engineers Ireland (FIEI) and Member of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (MCIWEM). I have over 38 ea e e e ce of marine environmental studies associated with Port and Harbour developments and capital dredging schemes. I have been engaged as an environmental expert in assessing a wide range of projects at Dublin Port since 2013.
1.1.3 I am currently Project Manager for the extensive environmental monitoring programme being undertaken for the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project at Dublin Port. Previously, I was the Project Manager for the preparation of the EIS for the ABR Project (ABP Ref 29N.PA0034, granted permission in July 2015) and associated Foreshore Consent Application and Dumping at Sea Permit Application.
1.1.4 Other recent experience includes Project Manager for the preparation of the EIAR for the Capacity Expansion at Shannon Foynes Project on behalf of Shannon Foynes Port Company (ABP Ref ABP-301561-18, granted permission in December 2018).
2 Involvement in the Project
2.1.1 I was responsible for the overall preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) for the MP2 Project which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 11 July 2019.
2.1.2 I was the author of Chapter 1 of the EIAR which provides an introduction to the overall approach adopted in preparing the EIAR. 2.1.3 I was co-author of Chapter 4 of the EIAR related to the Assessment of Alternatives, with Grace Glasgow (RPS) and Adam Cronin (ABL). 2.1.4 I was the author of Chapter 5 of the EIAR related to Project Scoping & Consultation. 2.1.5 I was co-author of Chapter 18 of the EIAR related to Cumulative Effects & Environmental Interactions with Grace Glasgow (RPS). 2.1.6 I was the author of Chapter 19 of the EIAR related to Summary of Mitigation Measures & Conclusions. 2.1.7 I was also the author of the Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) which supports the Planning Application.
1
3 Conclusions
Chapter 1 of the EIAR - Introduction
3.1.1 The EIAR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of EU Directives and Irish law regarding Environmental Impact Assessment.
3.1.2 The environmental appraisals have benefitted from the environmental monitoring programme which is currently in place for the construction of the ABR Project, the first Strategic Infrastructure Development brought forward to planning from the Dublin Port Masterplan 2040, and which is currently at the construction stage of development. The site-specific scientific data collected to date was used to support the preparation of the EIAR for the MP2 Project and serves to illustrate the depth of understanding of the environment in and around Dublin Port, including the inner Liffey channel (Dublin Harbour) and Dublin Bay.
Chapter 4 Assessment of Alternatives
3.1.3 At a strategic level, the Masterplan identified that the MP2 Project is a key element of e e a , de g he Ma e a f da e a a ach f providing capacity in Dublin Port for the 77.2m gross tonnes projected by 2040 by maximising he a f D b P b f e d a d .
3.1.4 At a detailed design level, the key environmental considerations which contributed to the design evolution process for the MP2 project elements are set out below:
Berth 53 This berth will demarcate the most easterly development of the Dublin Port Estate. Its development will eliminate the requirement for future land reclamation within the Tolka Estuary. It has been designed as an open-piled structure whose footprint lies outside the boundary of the South Dublin & Tolka Estuary SPA. The design minimises the impact of the structure on the natural tidal flows between the Liffey channel and the Tolka Estuary. As a result, there will be no significant change to the coastal processes including the morphology of the Tolka Estuary. Potential changes to the feeding grounds of waterbirds at extreme low spring tides are therefore expected to be de minimis.
Great South Wall - The original design of the MP2 Project included a manoeuvring area for vessels to turn in close proximity to the Great South Wall. Studies, including he e a ac f e e g b h e h g a d g f a d into the navigation channel found that engineering intervention measures between the manoeuvring area and the Great South Wall would be required to safeguard the integrity of the Great South Wall. To eliminate this potential risk, DPC decided to remove the manoeuvring area from the scope of the MP2 Project. This resulted in an alternative design comprising limited channel widening to the east of the Poolbeg Oil Jetty. The alternative design avoids any potential impact of the MP2 Project on the integrity and stability of the Great South Wall.
Unified Ferry Terminal - The original design of the MP2 Project included the design of a new Unified Ferry Terminal Building in close vicinity to the existing Calor Gas COMAH site. Consultations with the Health & Safety Authority determined that the proposed design was not suitable from a health & safety perspective. This resulted in an alternative design comprising the use of the existing Terminal 1 building as a Unified Terminal Building.
2
Berth 50A and Oil Berth 3 No alternative could be found for the requirement to extend Berth 50A without the demolition of the 19th Century Pier Head at Eastern Breakwater Road. Archaeological recording of the Pier Head and recovery of e e a f B d B d S e will be undertaken. Heritage gain proposals comprise the creation of a public realm visitor experience at the new eastern limit of the Dublin Port Estate.
Chapter 5 Project Scoping & Consultation
3.1.5 The development proposals advanced in the MP2 Project reflect the significant levels of consultation that have taken place since 2017 on the future of Dublin Port. The various submissions and comments made in relation to the MP2 Project have been fully considered in the preparation of the EIAR and in the design of the scheme. Every effort has been made to address all concerns raised and, where possible, mitigation measures have been proposed to minimise the environmental impact of the MP2 Project.
3.1.6 Detailed scoping has been undertaken in respect to the MP2 Project by engaging in consultations with prescribed and other authorities, bodies and stakeholders and through public consultation. Through the scoping process, the issues which are likely to be important during the environmental impact assessment have been identified. The scoping process has identified the sources or causes of potential environmental effects, the pathways by which the effects can happen, and the sensitive receptors, which are likely to be affected, and has defined the appropriate level of detail for the information to be provided in the EIAR.
Chapter 18 Cumulative Effects & Environmental Interactions
3.1.7 The potential cumulative effects of consented schemes nearby the MP2 Project were assessed. The most significant nearby Project identified was the ABR Project. Construction and operation phase mitigation measures were identified to prevent the potential interaction of cumulative effects.
3.1.8 The potential interactions between environmental aspects arising from within the MP2 Project were also assessed. Each technical chapter within the EIAR identifies and analyses the potential for other environmental interactions.
Chapter 19 Summary of Mitigation Measures & Conclusions
3.1.9 Integration of the engineering design team with the planning and environmental team from an early stage in the project has enabled mitigation by design to be used, causing many likely significant effects to be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level during the preliminary design stage. Following an examination, analysis and evaluation of the direct and indirect significant effects of the project in relation to the receiving environment, additional mitigation measures and monitoring programmes have been recommended which will be fully implemented during the construction phase of the MP2 Project.
3.1.10 The environmental appraisals presented in the EIAR have taken into account the environmental implications of a 15-year permission and conclude that there is no environmental impediment to the granting of a 15-year permission.
3
4 Environmental Appraisal of ‘Land’
4.1.1 ABP letter of 27 November 2019 requests DPC to address the potential impacts of he ed de e e he e e a c e a f a d a e ed de Section 171A(b)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended.
DPC e e e be w:
4.1.2 The Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, requires the EIAR to assess, inter alia, the following topics Land, Soil, Water
La d is defined in Section 2 of the 2000 Act as including a c e a d a land covered with water (whether inla d c a a ) and the potential impacts on land arising from the proposed development, including land-take, has been appraised within he EIAR b ha bee c ed de a e a a e La d heading.
S ha bee a a ed h Cha e 10 f he EIAR, Soils, Geology & Hydrogeology
Wa e ha bee a a ed h Cha e 9 f he EIAR, Wa e Q a & F d Risk Assessment. 4.1.3 It should also be noted that Schedule 6 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 require an EIAR to contain informa the land-use e e e d g he c c a d e a a ha e , he a f a d used, sustainable availability of land, during the operational phase of a proposed development, 4.1.4 The Guidelines on the Information to be contained in Environmental Impact Assessment Reports (Draft, August 2017) published by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] state as follows, under the heading Population and Human Health (at page 29):
The legi la i d e ge e all e i e a e me f la d-use planning, demographic issues or detailed socio-economic analysis. Coverage of these can be provided in a separate Planning Application Report to accompany an application for planning permission. This should be avoided in an EIAR, unless issues such as economic or settlement patterns give rise directly to specific new developments and associated effects (ref. section 3.5.7). These need to be readily identifiable at specific locations in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The main purpose of such identification and assessment is to provide the consenting authority with a context for their determination. (Examples would include future warehousing beside a new port; transmission lines in the vicinity of a new electrical sub-station or comme cial de el me be ide a j c i ed la d be ide a e ad.) 5
4.1.5 U de he head g, Lands and Soils , at page 31, the draft Guidance states:
Land (for example land take)64”
Footnote 64 states: Removal of productive land from potential agricultural or other beneficial uses.
4
Page 31 further states:
The amended Directive introduces Land as a prescribed environmental factor. Rec a 9 g e c e h add , h g ha e a e he e f a d a e . Th cha ge a g he D ec ve with proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio de Janeiro, 2012) and with Commission strategy.
At Page 32, under the heading Material Assets:
The meaning of this factor is less clear than others. In Directive 2011/92/EU it included architectural and archaeological heritage. Directive 2014/52/EU includes those heritage aspects as components of cultural heritage. Material assets can now be taken to mean built services and infrastructure. Traffic is included because in effect traffic consumes roads infrastructure. Sealing of agricultural land and effects on mining or quarrying potential come under the factors of land and soils.
At Page 34, under the heading Describing the Proposed Project, it states:
the location of the project the physical characteristics of the whole project, including, where relevant, demolition works, the land-use requirements during construction and operation as well as other works that are integral to the project the main characteristics of the operational phase of the project (production and maintenance processes in particular), for example energy demand, energy used, nature and quantity of materials and natural resources (including water, land, soil, biodiversity, etc.,) used and: an estimate, by type and quantity, of the expected residues and emissions (such as water, air, soil and subsoil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation and quantities and types of waste produced during the construction and operational phases.)
4.1.6 References to the assessment of Land within the EIAR are set out in the Table below
Environmental Issue EIAR Assessment Reference
Land-take, sustainable availability of land Redevelopment of brownfield land, Chapter 1 Section 1.6 and Chapter 2 Section 2.2
Quantity of land used Chapter 2 Section 2.2 and Chapter 3 Section 3.2
Removal of productive land from potential Not applicable agricultural or other beneficial uses
Location and physical characteristics of the Chapter 3, section 3.1 land
Existing Land-use Chapter 3, Section 3.1 and Planning Report Appendix B, Description of Operations
Land-use during the construction phase Chapter 3, Section 3.2 and 3.3
Land-use during the operational phase Chapter 3, Section 3.4 and Planning Report Appendix B, Description of Operations. The 5
Environmental Issue EIAR Assessment Reference
future land uses within the footprint of the MP2 Project will not significantly change.
Expected residues and emissions Chapters 7 16 of the EIAR address specific environmental factors and provide a description of the existing environment, the likelihood of effects, the significance of effects, remedial and mitigation measures, residual impacts and monitoring measures,
Chapter 3, Section 3.2.8.2 addresses the source of fill material for Oil Berth 4.
4.1.7 The key points arising from the environmental appraisal f La d h he EIAR are
The Dublin Port Masterplan 2040, reviewed 2018, recognises the finite availability of land for port related activity. Dublin Port lies immediately adjacent to the South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA and the Masterplan commits to no further Port expansion within the Tolka Estuary. Instead, the Masterplan focuses on the redevelopment of existing brownfield lands, berthing pockets and navigation channel in order to provide for the 77.2m gross tonnes projected by 2040 (EIAR Chapter 1 Section 1.6 and Chapter 2 Section 2.2).
The existing land uses within the footprint of the MP2 Project comprise the manoeuvring and berthing of vessels, the handling of Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo cargo, HGV traffic distributing cargo to and from Dublin Port and the movement of ferry passengers arriving and departing to/from Dublin Port (EIAR Chapter 3, Section 3.1 and Planning Report Appendix B, Description of Operations).
The MP2 Project is designed to provide port infrastructure which will improve the efficiency of port operations and thereby increase the throughput of both cargo and passengers. The future land uses within the footprint of the MP2 Project will therefore not significantly change (EIAR Chapter 3, Section 3.4 and Planning Report Appendix B, Description of Operations).
All of the construction and operational phase land take is contained within the MP2 Project planning permission boundary (Chapter 3, Section 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4).
The environmental appraisals presented in the EIAR have taken into account the environmental implications of the land resource, for example, the location of the land is remote from the nearest noise and air quality sensitive receptors due to the natural separation caused by the presence of the Tolka Estuary and River Liffey which will result in no significant nuisance to the local communities. Furthermore, there are no terrestrial habitats, flora & fauna of conservation value within the boundary of the site (EIAR Chapters 7 16).
There are no additional mitigation measures required as a result of the environmental appraisal of land to that already set out within the EIAR.
6
5 Submissions and Responses
In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the preparation of the EIAR which supports the MP2 Project. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.
5.1.1 Submissions on the approach to the EIAR
Submission #1
DCC confirms the information provided in Chapters 1-3 of the EIAR is considered adequate
Response
DPC notes the submission of DCC.
5.1.2 Submissions on the Assessment of Alternatives
Submission #2
DCC confirms that the approach to Chapter 4 of the EIAR is considered to be satisfactory.
Response
DPC notes the submission of DCC.
Submission #3
DCC Parks & Landscapes Services Division recommends a condition that the EIAR include an analysis of alternative uses of the dredged marine sediment, including finer materials, as an alternative to disposal at sea as waste.
Response
Section 4.3.9 of the EIAR sets out a detailed assessment of alternatives to dumping at sea of dredged materials. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with Guidance on the Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in Ireland (Cork Institute of Technology, 2013) and Dumping at Sea Application Guidance Note Version 5 (EPA, 2018).
The options for beneficial uses of the mainly sandy CLAY marine sediments to be dredged are limited. The assessment of the range of options considered is presented in Section 4.3.9.2 of the EIAR. No options for the beneficial use of the finer material to be dredged were found to be feasible.
A re-examination of the options has nevertheless been undertaken on foot of the DCC submission including the potential for beneficial use in other projects in the vicinity of Dublin Port such as the proposed Clontarf Flood Protection Scheme. Again no technically feasible option for beneficial use could be identified due to both the extremely weak engineering properties of the material after it has been dredged and the high saline content of the sediment. 7
DPC does not therefore believe the proposed DCC Condition is necessary as the analysis suggested has already been carried out in the EIAR.
Submission #4
DCC Conservation Section are concerned that the proposed removal of the 19th Century Pier Head has not been sufficiently justified but conclude that on balance the proposed loss of the existing Pier Head is considered acceptable.
Response
The proposed removal of the 19th Century Pier Head is required to lengthen Berth 50A in order to cater for the expected growth in Lo-Lo trade. The requirement is set out in Figure 5 of the Dublin Port Masterplan 2040, revised 2018, which shows an indicative length requirement of approximately 305m to cater for the increased size of vessels expected. The MP2 Project proposes that Berth 50A be lengthened in line with the Masterplan.
Alternative design options for Berth 50A were assessed in Section 4.3.6 of the EIAR. The removal of Pier Head is required to allow the existing Berth 50A to be extended westwards. This will extend the berth to the required length under the Masterplan and provide a closure to the proposed Oil Berth 4 infill. It is not possible to extend this quay wall eastward as this would impinge on the navigational safety of Berth 51. It would also inhibit the use of other berths within the Ferryport Basin as ships may not be able to swing into the basin.
DPC note and accept the recognition by DCC that on balance the proposed loss of the Pier Head is acceptable.
5.1.3 Submissions on Project Scoping & Consultation
Submission #5
DCC confirms that the approach to scoping is deemed satisfactory based on the existing legislative requirements and to gain a comprehensive understanding of the environmental issues
Response
DPC notes the submission of DCC.
Submission #6
The Parks & Landscapes Services Division of DCC concludes that the Project Rationale will involve an overall consolidation and intensification of development within the existing extent of the Dublin Port lands. This is in line with the DCC City Development Plan policies and objectives. This Rationale is preferable to previous strategies for the expansion of the Port through reclamation, and the associated impacts this would present to the Natura 2000 sites of Dublin Bay.
DCC Parks & Landscapes Services Division however notes that whilst a consultation meeting took place, there has been no recent discussions and little opportunity to discuss the data or proposal submitted or to query its contents
8
Response
DPC notes the submission of the Parks & Landscapes Services Division of DCC.
DPC undertook 8 no. consultation meetings with DCC during the preparation of the EIAR and DPC will continue to consult with DCC prior to commencement of the works and during the construction phase of the works. A Project Liaison Group has been successfully established for the ABR Project which is attended by DCC. It is proposed that this Group will be extended to oversee the MP2 Project.
Submission #7
Irish Water has commented that any connection to a public water supply or wastewater network is subject to a connection agreement with Irish Water
Response
Public Water Supply - It has already been confirmed by Irish Water through the pre- connection enquiry process that it is feasible to provide the required additional water demand (See EIAR Appendix 5).
Wastewater network - It is not anticipated that there will be any increase in the peak wastewater discharge to the public sewer as a result of the MP2 Project.
Submission #8
Irish Water request that the project be cognisant of the existing outfall in the vicinity of the development and that Dublin Port engage with Irish Water as development plans progress.
Response
The potential impact of the MP2 Project on the discharge from Ringsend Wastewater Treatment plant has been assessed in Chapter 12, Section 12.5 of the EIAR. Discussions have also taken place with ESB Networks regarding the proposed capital dredging works in the vicinity of the Poolbeg Generating Station cooling water discharge channel and weir. The Ringsend Waste Water Treatment Plant discharges treated sewage into the cooling water discharge channel and weir. ESB Networks has confirmed that they have no concerns regarding the capital dredging works proposed for the MP2 Project.
DPC undertake to continue to engage with Irish Water during the implementation of the development.
Submission #9
The Clontarf Residents Association welcomes the fact that Dublin Port no longer plans to reclaim the 52 acres and will instead be re-tasking Port lands for core Port activities.
9
Response
DPC notes the Cl a f Re de A c a b .
Submission #10
Peadar Buckley has expressed concern that the information provided by DPC is very sparse and the summer 2019 newsletter is far from clear or straightforward. Mr Buckley further asserts that on the other hand if one goes into the website one is snowed under from all the documentation and that most people in the Clontarf area are unaware of these proposals and many were on annual holidays.
Response
The extensive documentation submitted in support of the MP2 Project is required to meet the requirements of EU Directives and Irish law regarding Environmental Impact Assessment. To make the documentation more accessible to the general public a Non-Technical Summary of the EIAR has been submitted. This comprises an easily accessible summary of the content of the EIAR. A standalone Summary of Mitigation Measures document has also been submitted for ease of reference.
An extensive programme of public consultation was undertaken between April and July 2018 to seek the views of the wider public on the MP2 Project.
A further major public information exercise was undertaken to inform all stakeholders of the MP2 Project following the submission of the application with An Bord Pleánala in July 2019. The purpose of this information exercise, which is in addition to the statutory notification procedures required in relation to the project, was to inform the public of the development proposals, the impacts arising and to ensure that they are aware of the opportunities available to them to participate in the development assessment process. The public information campaign implemented included public consultation sessions in local community centres at Clontarf, East Wall and Ringsend.
Submission #11
D c a d B e F eg e ha DPC d d each d g he e- application consultation process to have an input at an earlier stage.
Response
DPC confirms that no direct consultation took place with the Docklands Business Forum during the pre-application phase of the MP2 Project. DPC welcomes their participation in the planning process and has made contact since receiving their submission. Both DPC and the Docklands Business Forum are members of the Dublin Docklands Oversight & Consultative Forum and the MP2 Project was outlined to this body at the pre-application stage. The extensive programme of public consultation described above was also readily available to the Docklands Business Forum.
The North Lotts & Grand Canal Dock SDZ Scheme and the Exo Building were fully assessed within Chapter 18 of the EIAR, Cumulative Effects & Environmental Interactions. These schemes were shortlisted in the assessment due to potential impacts associated with Traffic & Transportation. The results of the cumulative 10
assessment, which included an examination of the Traffic & Transportation Assessment, concluded that there was no significant cumulative impact with the MP2 Project. It was therefore not considered necessary to undertake direct consultation with the Dockland Business Forum during the pre-application stage of the MP2 Project application.
Submission #12
Peadar Farrell has asserted that the EIAR has not assessed air emissions from ships, navigational safety issues, noise associated with the unloading of containers, dredging activities to keep the fairway open.
Response
DPC confirms that these issues have been addressed within the EIAR as referenced below
Environmental Issue EIAR Assessment Reference
Air emissions from ships Chapter 10, Sections 10.1.9.3; 10.1.9.4; 10.1.9.5; 10.1.11; 10.1.13.2; 10.1.14.5; 10.1.15.2;10.5
Navigational safety issues Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.2.1; 3.2.1; 3.2.3; 3.2.6; 3.4.3;
Appendix 4-1 Summary of Navigation Simulation Studies
Noise associated with the unloading of Shipping noise is assessed Chapter 12, containers Sections 11.2.2; 11.2.3, 11.2.4; 11.2.5; 11.2.6
Lo-Lo and Ro-Ro operations are a key component of operational activities assessed in Sections 11.1.4.2; 11.1.4.3; 11.1.6
Dredging activities to keep the fairway open Chapter 18, Section 18.1.2, Table 18-3, pages18-37 to 18-38
5.1.4 Submissions on Cumulative Effects & Environmental Interactions
Submission #13
DCC Parks & Landscapes Services Division acknowledges that DPC has reviewed the cumulative impacts of several projects concerning the relevant Natura 2000 sites. However, the impacts of the various sub-projects under the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan should also be considered with regard to potential impacts on protected species and habitats.
11
Response
The EIAR assessed the cumulative impact of the MP2 Project and the Dublin Port Internal Road Network which includes cycle and pedestrian access along the Greenway.
To mitigate against potential cumulative effects, gates will be used at the site of the Greenway to control the movement of people during periods of low spring tides to avoid disturbance at feeding grounds within the Tolka Estuary.
Cycle paths proposed under the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan are distant from the MP2 Project and will have no additional cumulative effect.
Submissions on the Draft CEMP
Submission #14
DCC Parks & Landscapes Services Division recommend a series of conditions to ensure that the environmental management plans as set out in the draft CEMP will be implemented and that all monitoring and spatial data will be submitted to DCC in an agreed format.
Response
DPC accepts these conditions.
Submission #15
BirdWatch Ireland note that is imperative that one or more ecological Clerk of Works is onsite monitoring activities and that monitoring reports are circulated. BirdWatch Ireland also assert that sometimes despite the best intentions of mitigation measures on paper, differences arise in implementation on the ground. The Clontarf Residents Association also note that all activities must be undertaken in sympathy with the local communities and thereby it is essential that DPC be required to ensure that activities that are particularly noisy or disruptive are project managed to ensure minimal inconvenience to their neighbours. This project is taking place in a uniquely sensitive environment and all work must be undertaken in an environmentally sensitive way that seeks to protect and enhance the flora and fauna of Dublin Bay for future generations.
Response
DPC seeks to achieve the highest possible standards of environmental management during both the construction and operation of the MP2 Project. DPC is committed to appointing a full time Facilities Manager (Environmental Clerk of Works) to ensure all mitigation measures and monitoring requirements set out in the EIAR and NIS are fully implemented as set out in the Draft CEMP. The MP2 Project will benefit from the exemplary environmental management systems and procedures already in operation to oversee the construction phase of the ABR Project. The environmental management of the ABR Project over the last three years ably demonstra e DPC ability to put into practice its environmental commitments as set out in the planning conditions including all mitigation measures and monitoring requirements set out in the EIAR and NIS.
12
6 Conclusions
6.1.1 The potential impacts raised within the DCC Report and submissions made by Irish Water, BirdWatch Ireland, Clontarf Residents Association, Docklands Business Forum, Peadar Buckley and Peadar Farrell are acknowledged and have been considered during the preparation of the EIAR.
6.1.2 I have carefully considered the issues raised in those submissions and observations, as well as relevant issues raised in the planning a h report a d he B a d letter dated 27 November 2019.
6.1.3 In this context, it is apparent that the EIAR complies with all legislative requirements, as well as the recommendations made in guidance documentation both at EU and Irish national level. The EIAR and accompanying documentation submitted with the application for permission in respect of the MP2 Project consists of a systematic analysis and assessment of the potential effects of the proposed project on the receiving environment. Where likely significant effects have been identified during the preparation of the EIAR, where possible, these have been avoided or reduced during the design process. The analysis of effects also contributes to environmental protection by identifying appropriate mitigation measures in the EIAR.
6.1.4 In all the circumstances, having examined the EIAR, and considered the submissions and observations made by the planning authority, prescribed authorities and the public and public concerned, the Board, as competent authority is enabled to conduct an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the requirements of EU and Irish law.
13
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF CELINE DALY
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
Page 1 of 21
1 Qualifications and Experience
1.1.1 I am Celine Daly. I hold a Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Mathematics from Queens University Belfast and a Diploma in Irish Language from Ulster University. I am a Chartered Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Logistics and Transportation, a Member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and a Member of the Transport Planning Society. I have over 18 years’ experience as a transportation and highways engineering consultant.
1.1.2 My work primarily involves the management and preparation of transportation and highways-related documentation on behalf of private developers relating to the progression of proposed schemes through the planning process. My work also involves the progression of administrative and statutory processes to deliver highway works.
1.1.3 I have extensive experience of transportation assessment and impact analysis, people / traffic trip modelling and highway junction modelling. In particular over the previous 6 years I have carried out the transportation input of the following schemes at Dublin Port:
Alexandra Basin Redevelopment EIAR;
Masterplanning the Dublin Port Southern estate on the Poolbeg Peninsula;
Dublin Port Company Land Use Requirements and Implementation Plan;
Dublin Port Masterplan 2040, Reviewed 2018, and the accompanying Strategic Transport Study.
2 Involvement in the Project
2.1.1 I am the author of Chapter 13 of the EIAR Volume 2 Part 2, which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 11 July 2019, including the accompanying outline Mobility Management Plan included in Appendix 19-12 Volume 3 Part 3.
Page 2 of 21
3 Conclusions of the Traffic and Transportation Chapter 13 in the EIAR
3.1.1 As set out in detail in the EIAR, a Traffic and Transportation Assessment (TTA) has been carried out and reported on within Chapter 13 for the MP2 Project which has demonstrated that the existing, consented and proposed road network and transportation measures will accommodate the traffic volumes generated by the MP2 Project.
3.1.2 The existing, consented and proposed sustainable and active travel facilities provide a comprehensive suite of measures for users of the MP2 Project, including a €500,000 funding commitment from DPC (€100,000 per year for a period of 5 years) for the new shuttle bus service to connect the development comprised in the MP2 Project to the Luas and the DART.
3.1.3 Detailed computer modelling has demonstrated that the proposed access arrangements for the MP2 Project, particularly the 14 Unified Ferry Terminal (UFT) entry barriers, will have sufficient capacity with no accumulative queueing occurring at 2040, even under sensitivity testing.
3.1.4 Increased road capacity and planning gain will be provided on the external road network by the closure of the Port Estate accesses along East Wall Road, and the Southern Port Access Route (SPAR) which is a Masterplan proposal and will provide further capacity benefits along East Wall Road when constructed.
3.1.5 The Dublin Port Tunnel and Toll Plaza have sufficient capacity for MP2 Project.
3.1.6 Detailed computer modelling has demonstrated that the consented internal road network will have sufficient capacity at 2040 to accommodate the traffic generated by the MP2 Project.
3.1.7 It has, however, also been demonstrated in the EIAR that the consented Promenade Road Roundabout will exceed capacity at 2032 when a 3.3% pa growth rate is considered. The Promenade Road Roundabout forms part of the SPAR and the upgrade of the roundabout junction will be considered as the Masterplan continues to be implemented. The SPAR is due to be operational by 2031, which coincides with the consented roundabout coming to the end of its design life. In any event, the consented roundabout will have adequate capacity until at least 2031, which is comfortably within the 5 future year mitigation requirement as per the Chartered Institution for Highways and Transportation Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments. Additionally, there are a suite of measures available to DPC to control and manage the pattern of traffic arriving to the Port Estate that can utilised in future years as the current Masterplan comes towards the end of its lifespan.
Page 3 of 21
4 Submissions and Responses
In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on traffic and transportation. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the individual issues raised.
4.1 Docklands Business Forum
The Docklands Business Forum submission by Alan Robinson comments, under section 3, on the adequacy of the infrastructure outside the Dublin Port to deliver the increased traffic capacity. The comments relate to the capacity of the Port Tunnel and the surrounding road network.
4.1.1 Issue#1 Ð Port Tunnel Capacity
Submission:
The submission states that the Port Tunnel has now reached a capacity that cannot be increased.
Response:
This is an inaccurate and unsubstantiated statement. The EIAR contained a TTA in full accordance with the TII TTA Guidelines (2014). The traffic survey at the Tunnel carried out for the EIAR / TTA reconfirmed the analysis carried out in the Dublin Port Strategic Transportation Study of 2018, that the Tunnel is currently operating at approximately a quarter of its daily modelled capacity and approximately half of its modelled capacity during the peak hours. Within the NTA Regional Transport Model for the Greater Dublin Area, the Port Tunnel is coded with a capacity of 3,800 PCUs per hour per direction, and the EIAR1 shows that even half of the one-way flow of 1,900 PCU/hour per direction was not exceeded on the day of the traffic survey. The EIAR finds that the 3,800 PCU lane capacity per direction, or a total 7,600 PCU per hour, and the capacity of the northbound Toll Plaza of 4,275 PCUs per hour, is not reached during any of the 3 peak hours for the proposed traffic flows in 20402. The proposed total of 84,996 PCUs per day does not exceed the 182,400 daily PCU capacity of the Tunnel, or even the capacity of 91,200 PCUs per direction, less than half of the daily modelled capacity. In addition, it should be noted that TII is preparing plans for a major upgrade of the tolls at the Tunnel, including replacing the tolling related equipment and software at the Plaza. The project is anticipated to go out to tender imminently and the major upgrade is expected to result in the performance of the tolls to be significantly better than existing. Furthermore, TII is considering upgrading the toll collection system to be barrier free (or free-flow) in future
1 Volume 2, EIAR, Main Document (Part 2) Chapter 13, Page 13-88, Table 13-11
2 Volume 2, EIAR, Main Document (Part 2) Chapter 13, Page 13-125, Table 13-25
Page 4 of 21
years, which is likely to happen before the 2040 horizon year for the Dublin Port Revised Masterplan. It has therefore been demonstrated that the Port Tunnel and the Toll Plaza have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed MP2 Project.
4.1.2 Issue#2 Ð Port Tunnel Capacity
Submission:
The submission states that frequent delays are experienced by hauliers, in some cases up to 6 hours. Response:
A claim of a 6 hour delay for a haulier could only be attributable to an atypical event. TTAs are based on transport conditions on a typical day, which as discussed above, will have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed MP2 Project, particularly when the upgrade of the Dublin Port Road Network Improvement Project3 is complete and operational, and the additional benefits provided by the tolling plaza upgrades.
4.1.3 Issue#3 Ð Impact on Road Network
Submission:
The submission claims that there will be a significant negative impact on the surrounding road network caused by the proposed scheme. Response:
As appropriate, the EIAR contained a TTA carried out in full accordance with the TII TTA Guidelines (2014), and it is highlighted that (as set out further below) the TII submission in response to the MP2 application was positive. The TTA demonstrated that the existing, consented and proposed road network and transportation measures will accommodate the trips generated by the MP2 Project. It demonstrated the planning gain provided by DPC by closing the Port Estate accesses and removing traffic from the external road network for each of the junctions along East Wall Road, even with the recent uplift in Port traffic from 2.5% pa to of 3.3% pa, to which the MP2 Project contributes.
3 Dublin City Council Planning Reference: 3084/16
Page 5 of 21
It is also highlighted that, although the Southern Port Access Route (SPAR) is not part of the proposals for the MP2 Project, it is part of the Dublin Port Masterplan and if realised it will provide even further planning gain on this section of the adopted road network. The future year modelling results for the internal road network take account of the completion of the Dublin Port Road Network Improvement Project, which is currently under construction at the Port. The detailed computer modelling for future years demonstrated that the consented internal road network will have sufficient capacity at 2040 to accommodate the traffic generated by the MP2 Project. Additionally, there are a suite of measures available to the Port to control and manage the pattern of traffic arriving to the Port4 that can utilised in future years as the current Masterplan comes towards the end of its lifespan.
4 Volume 2, EIAR, Main Document (Part 2) Chapter 13, Bullet Points on Pages 13-141 and 13.142
Page 6 of 21
4.2 Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII)
The TII submission notes the proposals and recommends only some industry standard construction pre-commencement planning conditions which relate to the management of construction vehicles and level of road design. This is a very favourable and positive response for an application of this scale and nature, which reflects the thoroughness of the submission.
4.2.1 Issue#1 Ð Suggested Conditions
Submission:
TII note the proposals and recommends that, in the event that the Board grants permission, then the planning conditions associated with Dublin City Council planning application ref. no: 3084/16 should be attached. In particular TII consider that condition No.6 would be appropriate with minor revisions to item B:
Prior to commencement of the development, the develop shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Strategy for the Dublin Tunnel for the duration of the works which shall be submitted to and agreed with the planning authority in consultation with TII and the operators of the Dublin Tunnel. Response:
The application referenced relates to the Dublin Port Road Network Improvement Project currently under construction, and DPC is willing to accept the same planning conditions attached to that grant of permission and the suggested amendment to No.6.
Page 7 of 21
4.3 The Irish Academy of Engineers
The submission from Dr Gabriel Dennison of the Irish Academy of Engineers raises some transport-related concerns within the ‘Medium term issues’ section 2(b).
This submission repeatedly makes reference to the ‘application’, which would indicate that the comments relate to the application for the MP2 Project. However the content of the submission is very much focused on the entire Masterplan, of which the MP2 Project is only one element. This submission actually makes no reference to any of the submitted information for the MP2 Project - the EIAR, the Project Rationale or any of the supplementary documents or appendices. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider that the issues raised in this submission are raised in the context of the overall Masterplan and is not exclusively related to this particular project.
4.3.1 Issue#1 Ð 2(b) Medium Term Issues, Anticipated Unified Freight
Submission:
The submission states: ‘The application envisages that the unified freight traffic through Dublin will increase from 1.439 million units in 2018 to 3.174 million units in 2040’. Response As discussed above, the figures quoted, i.e. an increase in unified freight traffic from 1.439 million units in 2018 to 3.174 million units in 2040, are based on the Table on Page 32 of the Dublin Port Masterplan 2040, Reviewed 2018. (Figure 1)
Figure 1: Extract from the Reviewed Masterplan The MP2 Project Rationale that accompanied the application explains the contribution to those totals by the MP2 Project are approximately 30%5 of the Masterplan totals.
5 Appendix A to the Planning Report, Table 4
Page 8 of 21
4.3.2 Issue#2 Ð 2(b) Medium Term Issues, Traffic Distribution
Submission:
The submission states: ‘The application is however silent on how this additional traffic will be transported to and from Dublin Port. Response This is an inaccurate and unsubstantiated statement. The EIAR contained a TTA in accordance with the TII TTA Guidelines (2014), containing detailed traffic origin-destination information. Saturn models were built for the Strategic Transportation Study based on cordoned extracts from the NTA multi-modal model for Dublin City. The Saturn cordoned extract was combined with the latest traffic surveys to establish an origin-destination matrix for existing and proposed traffic flows between each of the four Port accesses and each of the five approach roads to the Port. The traffic distribution matrix for each of the 3 peak hours is included in Tables 13-13 to 13- 15 of the EIAR6 detail the origin-destination matrix for the four Port accesses and the 5 approach roads during each of the assessed peak hours. It is also highlighted that the TII submission in response to the MP2 application was positive and contained no queries on the assessed assignment of traffic to the M50 Tunnel. Accordingly, it is clear that, contrary to the submission made, the application documentation sets out the manner in which the additional traffic will be transported to and from Dublin Port.
6 Volume 2, EIAR, Main Document (Part 2) Chapter 13, Pages 13-90 to 13-92
Page 9 of 21
4.3.3 Issue#3 Ð 2(b) Medium Term Issues, Traffic Volumes on the M50
Submission:
The submission states: ‘TII’s National Roads Network Indicators 2018 report shows that traffic volumes on the M50 have been increasing steadily since 2013’. Response The graph illustrated in the response is based on traffic data from the M50 barrier free toll between junctions 6 and 7. It encompasses a 6 year window between 2013 and 2018. Both the 2017 and 2018 versions of TII’s National Roads Network Indicators report state that economic growth began to recover in a sustained way in 2012 and employment levels a year later.7 The traffic growth illustrated therefore represents a period of economic recovery and hence demonstrates an expected upward trend. This illustrates one of the reasons that traffic growth needs to be considered over a 10 year window or more, not 6 years. The DMRB8 and TII Standards9 state, in reference to traffic growth factors: Past growth, where known from traffic counts, can be used to give an indication of future trends in a particular situation but only where data over at least a 10 year period are available, since averaging over a shorter period may give misleading results.’ However, in the example cited in the submission, i.e. the M50 barrier free toll between junctions 6 and 7, even a 10 year window will give misleading results because the physical barrier infrastructure for the toll was removed in 2008, which would have caused a substantial change in the traffic flow profile. The EIAR, however, contained a TTA in full accordance with the TII TTA Guidelines (2014), and as appropriate used traffic growth rates from TII’s Project Appraisal Guidance (PAG) for National Roads Unit 5.3 Ð Travel Demand Projections (May 2019), noting that ‘High Sensitivity Growth’ rates where used in order to provide a more robust assessment.
7 TII’s National Roads Network Indicators 2017, Page 23 and TII’s National Roads Network Indicators 2018, Page 26
8 HD 24/06 Paragraph 2.18
9 TII Publications, Planning & Evaluation Standards, PE-SMG-02002
Page 10 of 21
4.3.4 Issue#4 Ð 2(b) Medium Term Issues, Traffic Volumes on the M50
Submission:
The submission states: ‘..as indicated in the graphic traffic levels, in both directions, now exceed Stable Flow Capacity for much of the day between 06.00 and 21.00.’ Response This statement is inaccurate. The key below is extracted from the same TII document cited within the submission.
The green colours represent Free flow (A) to Stable flow (C) conditions. It can be seen in Figure 2 that the green colour dominates the diagram below.
Figure 2: Extract from the M50 Performance Summary, 2018
Page 11 of 21
To provide absolute clarity, the areas that aren’t green have been blacked out in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Extract from the M50 Performance Summary, Non-green Colours Blacked Out
Figure 3 demonstrates that the Stable Flow (C) conditions are only exceeded between the typical commuter peak hours of 07:00 to 09:00 and 15:00 to 19:00. This is quite different from the claim that Stable Flow (C) conditions are exceeded for “much of the day between 06:00 and 21:00”. Indeed, it is clear that the statement made in the submission is incorrect.
In addition, the colour yellow in the key above represents Approaching unstable flow (D) and is not yet Unstable flow (E). The areas that aren’t green and yellow have been blacked out in Figure 4.
Figure 3: Extract from the M50 Performance Summary, Non-green and Yellow Colours Blacked Out
Page 12 of 21
Figure 4 shows that Unstable flow (E) conditions only occur sporadically on the M50 between 07:00 to 9:00 and 16:00 to 18:00, predominantly occurring southbound during the AM peak period and northbound during the PM peak period.
Figure 5 below is extracted from Page 14 of the same TII document.
Figure 5: Extract from the 2018 AADT on M50
Figure 5 shows that the traffic flows in the Tunnel and connecting to the M1 are considerably less that the flows at the location of the toll on which the submission is based (23,000 Vehicles Dublin Port Tunnel, 144,500 Vehicles M50 Toll). In addition, only c54%10 of the traffic flows in the Tunnel are attributable to the Port. Hence the peak hour capacity issues on the M50 obviously reflect the typical patterns associated with commuter non-Port traffic flows. As shown in Figure 6 below, it is demonstrated that that this section of M50 network that directly serves the Tunnels North Portals has Stable flow (C) conditions or better throughout a typical day, with and only Approaches unstable flow (D) conditions between 08:00-09:00
10 Dublin Port Masterplan 2040, Review 2018 Ð Strategic Transportation Study, Table 7.7, in PCUs
Page 13 of 21
southbound and 17:00-18:00 northbound, again coinciding with the typical AM and PM commuter flows. In addition, the EIAR11 has demonstrated that the peak hour of traffic flow at the Port is 06:15 to 07:15. This coincides with Stable flow (C) or better traffic conditions along the M50, which is also illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Extract from the M50 Performance Summary, Tunnel to M1 and Port Peak Hour on M50
11 Volume 2, EIAR, Main Document (Part 2) Chapter 13, Page 13-70, Table 13-6
Page 14 of 21
4.3.5 Issue#5 Ð 2(b) Medium Term Issues, Freight Volumes on the M50
Submission:
The submission states: ‘While it is recognised that HGVs account for less than 10% of the daily traffic on the M50 in practice, in terms of road utilisation, they account for multiples of that Figure. Response The HGVs proportions (grey percentages on Figure 7) are much less than 10% figure quoted on the majority of the M50, being only 7.8% at the toll location and less than 3.8% south of Junction 9.
Figure 7: Extract from the 2018 AADT on M50
It is also noted that all freight on the M50 is not generated by Dublin Port as the submission would suggest.
Page 15 of 21
In any event, the EIAR / TTA has already taken account of the road space utilisation of freight vehicles by converting the surveyed traffic flows to Passenger Car Units (PCUs). The TII conversion factors12 have been used, however, as detailed in the EIAR13 to provide a robust assessment the conversation rate of 2.9 has been used for OGV2 vehicles, despite the permissible TII rate of 2.3 being acceptable.
Figure 8: Freight Road Utilisation already taken into Consideration in the EIAR
12 TII Project Appraisal Guidelines for National Roads Unit 5.2 Ð Data Collection, Oct 2016 (Page 8)
13 Volume 2, EIAR, Main Document (Part 2) Chapter 13, Page 13-68
Page 16 of 21
4.3.6 Issue#6 Ð 2(b) Medium Term Issues, Traffic Volumes on the M50
Submission:
The submission states: ‘Thus increasing the volume of HGV traffic to and from Dublin Port by 120% by 2040 would have very serious consequences for M50 traffic flows. This problem will be made more acute by the most recent proposal by the National Transportation Authority (NTA) that the completion of the proposed MetroLink, from Swords to Sandyford, would not commence for 20 years. The Academy has previously argued for this development as a means of reducing private car traffic on the M50.
Response Again, as in the rest of the submission, the 120% figure quoted relates to the entire Masterplan, not the MP2 application. The daily traffic in the Dublin Port Tunnel presents only 16% of the traffic volumes at the M50 toll, of which less than 9% could be attributable the Port. The traffic peak for the Port is 06:15 to 07:15 when the M50 has Stable flows (C) or better. Hence, as has already been established above, the capacity issues on the M50 are directly attributable to the typical AM and PM commuter peak hour private car movements, not the movements related to the Port. It is entirely correct that the freight should be on the strategic road network, particularly when the Dublin City HGV Management Strategy is in force between 07.00 and 19:00. This is the very objective and function of the strategic road network, the M50, the Dublin Port Tunnel and the City Centre HGV Management Strategy Ð to keep strategic traffic on the strategic road network. It is the removal, or demand management, of the private car commuters (particularly single occupancy private car) that is required to address the M50 capacity issues, which will be the objective of schemes such as the MetroLink reference above, or the suite of demand measures being considered collectively by TII and the relevant local authorities. Possible measures are explored in the M50 Demand Management Report 201414 illustrated in Figure 9 and consider measures such as variable distance-based tolling by vehicle type.
14 TII and four Local County Councils (Dublin County Council, Fingal County Council, South Dublin County Council, Dun Loaghaire Rathdown County Council) including liaison with the Department of Transport Tourism and Sport (DTTAS), the National Transport Authority (NTA) and the Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) of each Council..
Page 17 of 21
Figure 9: M50 Demand Management
Page 18 of 21
4.3.7 Issue#7 Ð 2(b) Medium Term Issues, Dublin Inland Port
Submission:
The submission suggests that as the traffic generated by the Dublin Inland Port will have a modest peak hour percentage impact in traffic flows at the N2/R135 junction (7%), this somehow implies that the Dublin Inland Port will therefore make little contribution to reducing the additional HGV traffic envisaged in the application.
Response Again, the term ‘application’ has been used when this seems to be a more general implication relating to the ‘Dublin Port Masterplan. The peak hour percentage impact quoted in the submission relates to an area of only 8.45ha of the 44ha Dublin Inland Port, illustrated in Figure 9. This is clearly stated in the same An Bord Pleanála report quoted in the submission15. Hence no conclusions can be drawn from this source on the overall impact that the Dublin Inland Port will have on the surrounding road network, either at peak times or off-peak times, or the subsequent traffic reductions provided at the main Port Estate.
15 An Bord Pleanála letter to Fingal County Council dated 17 Jan 2018, Planning Ref F18A/0139, ABP Ref ABP- 302361-18
Page 19 of 21
Dublin City Council (DCC)
The Transportation Planning Division of DCC is satisfied with the information submitted as part of the EIAR and with the principle of the proposed development overall and has recommended a number of transportation conditions, in the event that permission is granted by the Board.
4.3.8 Issue#1 Ð Suggested Conditions
Submission:
Transportation Planning Division of DCC have suggested that the following conditions apply in the event of a grant of permission:
1. Prior to occupation of the proposed development, the applicant/developer shall submit a Mobility Management Plan for agreement with the Planning Authority. This shall identify specific measures aimed at encouraging sustainable modes of transport for staff and customers of Dublin port.
2. Prior to commencement of development, and on appointment of a contractor, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the planning authority for written agreement. This plan shall provide details of intended construction practice for the development, including traffic management, hours of working, noise management measures and off-site disposal of construction/demolition waste.
3. The developer shall be obliged to comply with the requirements set out in the Code of Practice.
4. All costs incurred by Dublin City Council, including any repairs to the public road and services necessary as a result of development, shall be at the expense of the developer. Work in the public road may only be carried out by Dublin City Council.
Response:
DPC have no objection to accepting the suggested planning conditions proposed by DCC.
Page 20 of 21
5 Conclusion
5.1.1 In preparing this witness statement I have considered each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on traffic and transportation.
5.1.2 TII and the Transportation Planning Division of DCC are satisfied with the information submitted as part of the EIAR and with the principle of the proposed development overall. They have both suggested conditions which DPC has no objection to accepting.
5.1.3 The Docklands Business Forum makes observations on impact that MP2 will have on the capacity of the Port Tunnel and surrounding road network that are considered inaccurate and inconsistent with the findings of the EIAR.
5.1.4 The submission from the Irish Academy of Engineers raises some transport-related concerns, however their submission makes no reference to any of the submitted information for the MP2 Project and contains more general wider strategic observations relating to the M50.
5.1.5 In conclusion, the MP2 Project will fulfil the Masterplan objective of enhancing unitized capability and locating a Unified Ferry Terminal at the eastern end of the Port Estate, the consolidated infrastructure inherently providing efficiencies in transport and freight movement. It will be located nearly 2km from the adopted road network with a dedicated stacking distance of 5.6km in front of the 14 access barriers, and traffic will be controlled by 36 vehicular signage gantries. It has been demonstrated that the existing, consented and proposed road network and transportation measures will accommodate the trips generated by the MP2 Project. Active and sustainable travel facilities have enshrined within the scheme design, and mechanisms for delivering and managing travel measures included within the planning application.
Page 21 of 21
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
JOINT WITNESS STATEMENT OF: ADRIAN BELL (LEAD WITNESS); ANDREW JACKSON; JOSEPH McGRATH; AND ALAN BARR
COASTAL PROCESSES, FLOOD RISK, SOILS, GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Page 1 of 26
1 Qualifications and Experience Ð Adrian Bell (Lead Witness)
1.1.1 I am Adrian Bell. I hold a 1st Class Honours BSc in civil engineering from the University of Glasgow, I am a Fellow of The Irish Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of Engineers Ireland and have more than 40 years’ experience in the fields of maritime engineering and marine environmental modelling.
1.1.2 I have undertaken more than 60 coastal process studies for projects in the UK, Ireland and overseas, many of which involve the appraisal of the potential environmental impacts of harbour developments and dredging. I undertook the hydraulic modelling and hydraulic design of the marine works for the Dublin Port ABR Project including assessment of the impact of this project on the coastal processes within Dublin Harbour and Dublin Bay. I have been involved in extensive wave modelling studies on east coast of Ireland and in Dublin Bay including the Irish Wave and Water level Study for the OPW, wave simulations for developments around Dun Laoghaire and ship wash wave studies in Dublin Bay for Dublin Port Company. Thus I have extensive experience in coastal process modelling on the east coast of Ireland and in Dublin Bay
1.2 Qualifications and Experience Ð Andrew Jackson
1.2.1 Andrew Jackson holds an honours degree in Civil Engineering from Queens University in Belfast and he is a chartered engineer with Engineers Ireland and the Institution of Civil Engineers.
1.2.2 He has almost 20 years’ experience in civil engineering consultancy for RPS in all aspects of flood risk assessment and management. In his current role, as Director of Flood Risk Management, he is responsible for the delivery of a wide range of flood risk management projects including national strategies, catchment level studies and site specific flood risk assessments across Ireland and Scotland. He has extensive experience in the preparation of flood risk assessments in support of planning applications having undertaken these for a wide range of commercial, industrial and residential developments since the advent of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines in 2009.
1.3 Qualifications and Experience Ð Joseph McGrath & Alan Barr 1.3.1 Joseph McGrath holds a BSc (Hons) in Biochemistry and an MSc in Environmental Science from University College Dublin. He is a member of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), a Chartered Water and Environmental Manager (C.WEM), a Chartered Scientist (CSci) and a Member of the Institute of Environmental Science (IES).
1.3.2 Joseph is an Associate with RPS who leads the geo-environmental team in the RPS Belfast office. He has over twelve years’ experience in the field of contaminated land assessment and environmental consultancy and has led the preparation of soils, geology and hydrogeology chapter of the environmental impact assessment reports for a number of various public and private sector clients.
1.3.3 For the purposes of brevity, Alan Barr’s qualifications and experience have not been reproduced in this section. This information can be found in Section 1 of Alan Barr’s Witness Statement.
Page 2 of 26
2 Involvement in the Project Ð Adrian Bell
2.1.1 I undertook the hydraulic design of the proposed new Berth 53 including the design and modelling of the proposed thruster screen and wash protection to structures and assessed the stability of the adjoining SPA area using advanced computational coastal process modelling techniques.
2.1.2 I evaluated the potential impact of the proposed development on the coastal processes within Dublin Harbour and Dublin Bay as well as the potential impact of the proposed dredging and spoil disposal on the hydraulic regime, using computational modelling techniques.
2.1.3 I was author of Chapter 12, Material Assets - Coastal Processes, of the EIAR submitted with the application for development consent in respect of the proposed MP2 Project.
2.2 Involvement in the Project Ð Andrew Jackson
2.2.1 Andrew was the author of Chapter 9.2 of the EIAR, which was submitted as part of the application for permission An Bord Pleanála on 11 July 2019.
2.3 Involvement in the Project Ð Joseph McGrath & Alan Barr
2.3.1 Joseph was lead author of Chapter 8.0 of the EIAR, which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 11 July 2019.
2.3.2 Joseph oversaw and managed the intrusive ground investigations undertaken as part of the assessment for Chapter 8.0.
2.3.3 Alan was the author of section 8.11 regarding Sediment Chemistry.
3 Conclusions
3.1 Conclusions of the Coastal Processes Section, Chapter 12 in the EIAR
3.1.1 As set out in detail in the section 12.9 of the EIAR, the assessment of coastal processes was based on an extensive numerical modelling programme which was undertaken using RPS' in-house suite of MIKE coastal process modelling software developed by the Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). Baseline models were calibrated and verified against a range of project specific hydrographic data and subsequently used to assess the construction and operational impacts of the MP2 Project.
3.1.2 The substantive conclusions set out in the EIAR in relation to coastal processes are:
The tidal regime is predicted to remain substantially unchanged post MP2 Project construction. The risk of impact to the existing tidal regime is therefore determined to be negligible and no mitigation is required. The assessment of potential changes to the inshore wave climate found that the maximum change in wave heights in Dublin Harbour during storm events from the north east, east and south east did not exceed ±0.10m. These changes were confined primarily to Berth 50A and Berth 50; and there was no discernible change in the wave climate due to the MP2 Project in relevant proximate areas such as Clontarf, Fairview
Page 3 of 26
and Ballybough bordering the Tolka Estuary. These changes to the wave climate are not considered significant and will not impact operations within the Port. With mitigation measures in place, the dredging operations for the MP2 Project will not result in any significant impact to either water quality in terms of suspended sediments, or the nearby environmentally designated areas in terms of sediment deposition. The small increase in suspended sediment concentrations relative to background levels caused by the MP2 dredging operations will not impact the quality of intake waters for the power station intakes or Ringsend WwTW outfall. Furthermore, as per customary practice, DPC will notify the power station operators in advance of each dredging. This will enable power stations to temporarily stop water abstraction and thus mitigate potential impacts of dredging operations. The assessment of disposal of dredge spoil arising from the MP2 Project at the licenced offshore disposal site located to the west of the Burford Bank concluded that the disposal operations will not result in any significant increase to the background level of suspended sediments and will not, therefore, impact the existing water quality in the greater Dublin Bay area. The assessment of potential changes to the morphology of the Tolka Estuary due to the construction and operation of Berth 53 concluded that the open-piled design of the jetty and the incorporation of a wash protection structure to reduce propeller and thruster jet velocities successfully mitigated the potential impact on water bird foraging areas within the Tolka Estuary. No significant change to the position of the Lowest Astronomical Tide mark would arise as a result of the of the MP2 Project. 3.1.3 The conclusion of the coastal processes assessment was that in circumstances where the mitigation measures are fully implemented during the construction and operational phases, the impact of the MP2 Project on the coastal processes within Dublin Harbour and Dublin Bay will be imperceptible.
3.2 Conclusions of the Flood Risk Section, Chapter 9.2 in the EIAR
3.2.1 As set out in detail in the EIAR (section 9.2) the assessment of flood risk to the MP2 Project Site has been carried out in accordance with the sequential approach set out in the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009) Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009) and the current Dublin City Development Plan. 3.2.2 The flood risk to the site has been assessed from all sources and the predominant risk emanates from tidal flooding. 3.2.3 The assessment has determined the respective flood zonings across the MP2 site based on the latest 0.5% and 0.1% AEP coastal flood levels. 3.2.4 Based on this zoning it has been shown that the MP2 Project Site consists of areas of land located within Flood Zones A, B and C but that the types of development being proposed are considered to be water compatible. This means that the development is appropriate for all flood zones and consequently, pursuant to the policies of both the Flood Risk Management Guidelines and the Dublin City Development Plan, a Justification Test is not required to be completed. 3.2.5 However, in line with the precautionary approach set out in the Guidelines and to manage the residual risk, mitigation measures have been proposed where appropriate
Page 4 of 26
to ensure vehicles and people do not remain in the area during an extreme event and also to minimise damage to the existing terminal building.
3.2.6 It can therefore be concluded that the proposed development is compliant with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines (2009) and the policies and objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan. 3.3 Conclusions of Soils, Geology & Hydrogeology Section of Chapter 8 of the EIAR
3.3.1 As set out in detail in the EIAR (Chapter 8.0), the MP2 project will have a Neutral impact on soils, geology and hydrogeology.
3.3.2 Construction activities will include:
Demolition of a number of buildings and removal of fuel storage tanks located at Terminal 2 and 5. The impact from these demolition works will be Neutral.
Oil Berth 4 will be infilled with imported engineering fill material. The impact to soils, geology and hydrogeology will be Neutral.
The impact from dredging and piling works will again be Neutral. 3.3.3 Operational impacts are predicted to be Neutral. The conceptual site model developed as part of the contamination assessment did not identify any soil-source-pathway receptor linkages in relation to human health and therefore the risk to human health (future site workers/users) from sub-soil contamination is considered to be negligible. 3.3.4 The groundwater beneath the site has been impacted predominantly by metal contamination. However it is noted that surface water samples identified similar contamination indicating that the monitoring results are indicative of the baseline groundwater and surface water quality across the Dublin Port area. No significant hydrocarbon or Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAHs) contamination was noted within the samples. The operational phase of the development will not introduce significant new sources of potential groundwater contamination. The overall hydrogeology impact from operation of the development is considered to be Neutral. 3.3.5 No specific construction or operational phase mitigation measures are required for soils, geology and hydrogeology. 3.3.6 No residual impacts are predicted for either the construction or operational phase. 3.3.7 Sediment Chemistry sampling and analysis of the areas to be dredged was undertaken in accordance to a Sampling & Analysis Plan specified by the Marine Institute.
3.3.8 The sediment chemistry sampling and analysis results were provided to the Marine Institute who examined the results in detail in combination with other relevant data held by the Marine Institute. The Marine Institute confirmed that they would have no objection to the disposal of this sediment at the licensed offshore disposal site located at the approaches to Dublin Bay west of the Burford Bank. The marine sediments can therefore be classified as Class 1 (Uncontaminated: no biological effects likely).
4 Submissions and Responses
In preparing this witness statement, the relevant witnesses have each considered, in particular, the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by Dublin City
Page 5 of 26
Council, GSI, the Irish Academy of Engineering and Mr Farrell in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on coastal processes; flood risk; soils, geology and hydrogeology. The witnesses have addressed the relevant part the submission below, before providing responses to the essential point being made.
Issue#1: The Bull Walls
Submission:
Dublin City Council, Conservation Section has raised an issue in relation to the continued and likely impacts of increased scouring/dredging/water movements on the Great South Wall and North Bull Wall.
Response:
As stated in section 3.2.1 of Chapter 3 in the EIAR, the MP2 Project elements have been designed to “ensure the integrity and stability of the Great South Wall is maintained”. As can be seen from Figure 3.3, section 3.2.1 page 3.11, there is no dredging proposed adjacent to the Great South Wall in the MP2 project.
In terms of water movements which could either cause scouring or damage to the wall, these can only result from tidal currents, natural wind waves or ship movements. It was shown in Chapter 12 of the EIAR that there are no changes in the tidal regime resulting from the proposed MP2 Project and that the changes in the wave climate were very small and restricted to the areas around Berths 50 and 50A. Thus the only changes which could impact the Great South Wall and the North Bull Wall would be related to ship movements.
To this end, RPS has undertaken a detailed assessment of the water movements and wash at both the Bull Walls resulting from ship traffic in Dublin Port with particular emphasis on ferry movements which are expected to increase as a result of the MP2 Project. This detailed report is included as Appendix 1 of this witness statement.
The salient points of this report are;
The ships operating inside the Bull Walls are subject to strict speed restrictions and are monitored by the Harbour Masters office using the Ports VTS. Ferries, cargo ships and small cruise ships are limited to 9 knots whilst large cruise ships are limited to 6 knots.
A moving ship produces two forms of wave disturbances. The primary wave system is composed of a front wave, a lateral water depression and a transverse stern wave whilst the secondary wave system predominantly forms in the wake path of the ship's propagation with interference peaks at angles of about 20 degrees to the sailing line.
The primary disturbance caused by large ferries using Dublin Port travelling at 9 knots will form a shallow wave of 0.195m. These primary waves have a wavelength equivalent to length of the vessel (i.e. 155m) and propagate at 0.405m/s. These waves will not impact either bed scour or the structural integrity of the Bull Walls.
The secondary wave disturbances for the same class of vessels will form a group of c. 5 waves within the wake of the vessel. The height of these waves reduce to 0.117m at the Bull Walls with wave periods and lengths of 2.58 seconds and 9 metres respectively. This wave group will interact with the Bull Walls for c.15 seconds with
Page 6 of 26
every ferry passing. As daily ferry movements at Dublin Port may increase from c.36 to c.46 after the MP2 Project, the Bull Walls will experience an additional 69 hours of ship wash disturbance per year.
The ship wash waves that approach the Bull Walls when vessels travel at the maximum permissible speed of 9 knots were found to be very small and equivalent to natural waves generated during offshore Beaufort Force 4 winds. Using records from Dublin Airport, Force 4 winds or greater were found to occur at Dublin Port for c.410 hours annually, i.e. a period almost 6 times greater than that of the ferry wake.
Furthermore, the typical naturally occurring wind wave height at the Great South Wall and North Bull Wall, which occurs for the same period per year as the ferry wash, will have wave heights of c.0.25 and 3.00 metres respectively. Given that wave energy is a squared function of the wave height, the energy of the natural waves impacting both Bull Walls will be orders of magnitude greater than the ship wash waves.
It can therefore be concluded that the MP2 project will not impact the stability of either the Great South Wall or the North Bull Wall in any appreciable way.
Issue#2: Sediment Disposal Cumulative Impact
Submission
Mr Farrell raised concern regarding the cumulative effect of dumping dredge spoil arising from the MP2 Project in combination with the ABR Project and maintenance dredging.
Response
The MP2 Project requires the capital dredging and disposal of 424,644 m3 of marine sediments as set out in Table 3-1 of the EIAR. This equates to circa 700,000 tonnes, wet weight. The loading and dumping operations will be confined to the winter months (October to March). The sequencing of dredging activity is set out in Figure 3-24 of the EIAR and is related to the programme of quay construction. Dredging is expected to take place over a number of winter seasons during the construction phase of the MP2 Project.
The cumulative effect of the proposed capital dredging activity required for the MP2 Project and the ongoing capital dredging associated with the ABR Project and DPC’s future maintenance dredging requirements have been assessed within Chapter 18 of the EIAR. (Cumulative Effects & Environmental Interactions).
The ABR Project capital dredging scheme will be completed prior to commencement of the MP2 Project so there will be no overlap between the dredging requirements of the MP2 Project and the ABR Project.
DPC’s future maintenance dredging requirements will be confined to a 4-6 week period each year, depending on weather conditions, within the window April to September. Again, there will be no overlap between the dredging requirements of the MP2 Project and DPC’s future maintenance dredging requirements.
Mr Farrell’s assertion that disposal of dredge spoil now takes place 12 months a year is therefore incorrect.
Page 7 of 26
The licensed disposal site is located to the west of the Burford Bank at the approaches to Dublin Bank. The site does vary in depth from circa 20m to the east and 10m to the west. However the width of the disposal site is circa 1.5 km resulting in an average slope across the disposal site of circa 1 in 150 which is extremely gradual.
Mr Farrell’s assertion that the slope causes all dumped material to come back into Dublin Bay is therefore incorrect.
Extensive environmental monitoring is ongoing with respect to the dumping of dredged spoil from the ABR Project. The results of the monitoring, presented in Chapter 9 of the EIAR (Water Quality and Flood Risk Assessment), shows that capital dredging to date has not caused any discernible increase in turbidity above recorded background levels outside the footprint of the disposal site. The site is dispersive for clays and silts. The strong tidal currents measured at the site, supported by computational modelling, show that the clays and silt are dispersed within the Irish Sea and does not therefore contribute to the silting of the Blue Lagoon between Sutton/Dollymount and Bull Island.
The disposal site is also advantageous in that the sands and gravel elements of the dredged material are retained within the natural Dublin Bay sediment cell.
Details on the cumulative effect of benthic recovery at the licenced offshore disposal site is presented in Chapter 7, Section 7.3 of the EIAR.
Issue#3: Flood Risk
Submission: Dublin City Council’s report, DCC Ref: PART X/0024: Appendix E (Drainage Division) states that: mitigation measures as detailed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment by RPS shall be implemented. Response:
All of the listed mitigation measures detailed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment will be implemented by Dublin Port Company.
Issue#4: Future Flood Protection
Submission: The Irish Academy of Engineering highlights the issues affecting many coastal cities and the need to plan for the longer term impacts of sea level rise. The submission refers to a report prepared for Dublin City Council entitled, “Integrated Water Resource Management Planning for the Dublin City/Dublin Coastal Region” which suggests that, in the future, a tidal barrier may be required to provide protection to the city across the mouth of the Liffey between the North and South Bull Walls to manage the predicted impacts of sea level rise. The submission also states that the operation of such a barrier could have very significant adverse implications for port operations.
Page 8 of 26
Response:
The Flood Risk Assessment and EIAR has considered fully the existing flood risk to the MP2 Project Site in accordance with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009) and proposed an appropriate level of mitigation to be implemented.
Acknowledging the scenario described in the Integrated Water Resource Management Planning report, whereby a tidal barrier may be considered to manage future flood risk in the future, it is noted that there are no current plans to undertake a project of this nature and therefore it could not be considered in the assessment of flood risk to the proposed development.
However, for the Board’s information, Andrew, in a professional capacity, has visited and toured the Maeslantkering flood defence barrier at the mouth of the channel leading to Rotterdam port. This barrier, constructed in the 1990s, was designed to protect Rotterdam city against a storm surge of up to a 1 in 10,000 year return period. The barrier had to take account of the movements and operation of Rotterdam port which, at the time, was the largest in the world. The experience in Rotterdam port demonstrates that an operating port can exist and benefit from a tidal barrier of the type described by the Academy.
Andrew also considers the MP2 Project in no way impedes the construction of a future tidal barrier and the mitigation measures proposed in the Flood Risk Assessment and EIAR to manage flood risk to the Project Site are in accordance with the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009).
Issue#5: clarification as to whether contamination is geogenic (naturally occurring) or anthropogenic (originating from human activity)
Submission:
Within Dublin City Council’s report, DCC Ref: PART X/0024: the Parks and Landscape Service stated that it would be useful if the applicant could explain if contaminants on the site are geogenic or anthropogenic and if concentrations recorded were typical or atypical for Dublin’s Coastline, ports or due to industrial activity (past and present) at the Port. They recommend that the SURGE (Soil Urban Geochemistry) report1 is consulted which provides a baseline for soil urban geochemistry of the Dublin area.
Response:
The Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) report (Appendix 8.1 of EIAR) indicates that the site has been reclaimed beginning in the late 19th Century and was developed in the 1960’s. The ground investigation report (Appendix 8.2 of EIAR) indicates that the site was reclaimed and infilled with Made Ground which may have the potential to give risk to ground contamination.
The SURGE report was consulted and a comparison made with the soil laboratory analytical results obtained from the ground investigation. Typical concentrations for a
1 Dublin SURGE Project. Geochemical Baseline for Heavy Metals and Organic Pollutants in Topsoils in the Greater Dublin Area. Geological Survey of Ireland, 2012.
Page 9 of 26
number of soil chemical parameters from the Dublin Port area as recorded in the SURGE report were compared against the concentrations in soil samples recorded from the intrusive ground investigation (Appendix 2 of this witness statement).
Given the presence of Made Ground beneath the Port and the industrial activity (past and present) it is likely that soil chemical concentrations recorded outside the range identified in the SURGE report are of historic anthropogenic origin. This is likely the case with PAHs, Zinc, Lead and Arsenic. It should be noted that, as per Chapter 8.6.1 of the EIAR, the contamination assessment did not identify any risk to human health from any of the concentrations of soil chemical parameters recorded during the ground investigation. Issue#6: clarification on the results of analysis for Beryllium
Submission:
The Parks and Landscape Service highlight the potential health risks from elevated concentrations of Beryllium, and that the results are not included in the EIAR.
Response:
Laboratory analytical results for Beryllium are contained within Appendix 8.2 Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment report. The concentrations recorded were significantly below the generic screening value of 12 mg/kg (S4UL Commercial end use) and no risk is considered to be present to human health from Beryllium concentrations from soil samples beneath the site.
Issue#7: Relevant information available via the GSI website
Submission:
GSI do not identify any specific concerns or issues in relation to Chapter 8.0 but highlighted the information available on its website in relation to bedrock and quaternary geology, geological heritage sites, mineral deposits, groundwater, geothermal energy and geohazards.
Response:
The Preliminary Risk Assessment (Desk Study) report which accompanied Chapter 8.0 (Appendix 8.1) used the Spatial Resources Map Viewer available on GSI’s website (https://dcenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=a30af518e87a4c0 ab2fbde2aaac3c228) to identify bedrock and quaternary geology, hydrogeology and groundwater vulnerability of the site. No geohazards, mineral deposits or geological heritage sites were identified within the site.
Issue#8: Sediment Chemistry
Submission
Mr Farrell states that all river Ports are really filthy at the bottom with estuarine mud continuously being washed downstream. The oil berths will also have added chemicals to be shared out with all creatures living in Dublin Bay.
Page 10 of 26
Response
Mr Farrell’s description of the sediments to be dredged is inaccurate. In order to determine the suitability of the marine sediments for disposal at sea, the Marine Institute prepared a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) specifying the sample locations, depths and contaminants to be tested. A total of 30 samples were required to be tested at locations presented in Figure 8-6 of the EIAR.
In August 2018, an intrusive marine ground investigation was undertaken by Fugro Geoservices Ltd to collect the sediment samples for laboratory analysis in accordance with the SAP. The sediment samples were sent to National Laboratory Services (NLS) in the UK for sediment chemistry analysis. The marine sediments can be described as a sandy CLAY with pockets of gravel. No rock is required to be dredged to achieve the design depths of the channel widening and berthing pockets.
The marine sediments were classified by comparing the sediment chemistry results against the upper and lower action limits set in the Marine Institute Guidelines for the Assessment of Dredge Material for Disposal in Irish Waters (2006).
The full results of the sediment chemistry sampling and analysis were provided to the Marine Institute who examined these in detail in combination with other relevant data which they hold. The Marine Institute confirmed that they would have no objection to the disposal of this sediment at the licensed offshore disposal site located at the approaches to Dublin Bay west of the Burford Bank. The marine sediments can therefore be classified as Class 1 (Uncontaminated, no biological effects likely).
Issue#9: Water Quality
Submission
Mr Farrell states that the silt and mud disposed of at the licensed offshore disposal site is re-suspended during easterly wind conditions and creates unsafe conditions for divers within Dublin Bay.
Response
Firstly, the potential impact of disposing dredge material at sea was assessed in Chapter 12 of the EIAR (Material Assets Ð Coastal Processes). This assessment found that owing to the fully dispersive nature of the licensed offshore disposal site, mud and silt material does not settle to the seabed but is instead carried beyond Dublin Bay by prevailing tidal currents.
This was verified by turbidity measurements recorded within Dublin Bay as part of the ABR monitoring programme. As described in Chapter 9 of the EIAR (Water Quality & Flood Risk Assessment), this data demonstrated that the dredging campaigns during 2017 and 2018 did not cause any discernible increase in turbidity at the dump site.
Secondly, the naturally occurring re-suspension of bed material is integral to physical and biological functioning of any coastal system, including Dublin Bay. Without the re- suspension of sediment material, the exchange of sediment with surrounding areas, including beaches would be reduced and result in the loss of important habitat. The naturally elevated suspended sediment levels in Dublin Bay prior to any dredging activity can be seen in the satellite imagery in Figure 4.1 (ESA Sentinel 2 & 3).
Page 11 of 26
In conclusion, mud and silt material dumped at the licensed offshore disposal site will be dispersed and will not be available for re-suspension.
Figure 4.1 Satellite image of Dublin Bay recorded by Sentinel 2, 8th April 2017 at 11:33am showing naturally elevated suspended sediment levels prior to the ABR Project capital dredging scheme which commenced in October 2017.
5 Conclusions
5.1 Coastal Processes
5.1.1 A submission was received from the Dublin City Council concerning potential impacts on the stability of the Great South Wall from increased ferry traffic resulting from the MP2 Project. It has been shown that as a result of the strict speed restrictions imposed within Dublin Port, the wash wave heights at both the Great South Wall and the North Bull Wall from ferries operating in Dublin Port are very small and that both Walls are more exposed to natural wind waves which have significantly more wave energy than the wash waves.
5.1.2 As such, it can be concluded that the MP2 Project will not affect the stability of either the Great South Wall or the North Bull Wall in any appreciable manner. The energy associated with the additional ship wash waves is orders of magnitude smaller than the energy associated with naturally occurring waves and therefore considered negligible in comparison.
5.1.3 A submission was received from Mr Farrell concerning regarding the cumulative effect of dumping dredge spoil arising from the MP2 Project in combination with the ABR Project and maintenance dredging. In brief, the ABR Project capital dredging scheme will be completed prior to commencement of the MP2 Project. As such, there will be no overlap between the dredging requirements of the MP2 Project and the ABR Project
Page 12 of 26
and thus no cumulative effect on water quality.
5.1.4 Furthermore, results from extensive environmental monitoring has demonstrated that capital dredging to date has not caused any discernible increase in turbidity above recorded background levels outside the footprint of the disposal site.
5.2 Flood Risk
5.2.1 The submissions from Dublin City Council and the Irish Academy of Engineering do not alter the findings of Chapter 9 of the EIAR. As such, the conclusions presented in Section 3 of this statement in relation to Flood Risk are unchanged.
5.2.2 In all the circumstances, it is submitted that the Board is enabled to conclude that the sequential approach set out in the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines has been applied and in this regard the proposed development is fully compliant.
5.3 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology
5.3.1 The proposed MP2 development will have a neutral impact on the soils, geology and hydrogeology of Dublin Port. The conceptual site model developed as part of the contamination assessment did not identify any soil source-pathway-receptor linkages in relation to human health and therefore the risk to human health (future site workers and site users) from sub-soil contamination is considered to be negligible.
5.3.2 The marine sediments to be dredged are suitable for disposal at sea.
5. 3. 3
Page 13 of 26
APPENDIX 1 Ship Wake Assessment Study
Page 14 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
1 INTRODUCTION
Dublin City Council (Conservation Section) has raised concerns about possible damage to the Great South Wall and North Bull Wall due to increased ferry wash resulting from the development outlined in the MP2 Project planning application made to An Bord Pleanála. Together, these structures are colloquially known as the Bull Walls.
RPS has subsequently undertaken a study on the vessels wakes at both walls with reference to the potential increased ferry traffic associated with the proposed MP2 Project.
2 SHIP TYPE AND SIZE
Currently the regular traffic using Dublin Port consists of Ro-Ro cargo ships up to 235m LOA, Ferries up to 225m LOA (Ulysses), Cruise ships and Lo-Lo vessels. All Cargo ships, Ferries and Cruise ships less than 250 m LOA are restricted to 9 knots when sailing within the confines of the Bull Walls. Cruise ships in excess of 250 m LOA are restricted to 6 knots when travelling within the Bull Walls.
All ships speeds are monitored by the Harbour Master’s Office using the Ports VTS and thus the speed restrictions are being adhered to.
Future traffic to the MP2 Project will include Irish Ferries and Stena with ship lengths of 226m and 215m as at present but the frequency of ferry movements is likely to increase.
Typically, the Ferries have drafts of about 6.7m while Ro-Ro ships have drafts of about 8.5m and Cruise ships can have a draft of up to c.9.1m. For the purposes of this assessment and to be conservative, it has been assumed that entry length (distance from the vessel’s bow to the commencement of the parallel mid-body section) is one fifth of the overall length of the ship.
3 THEORECTICAL BACKGROUND TO SHIP WASH
The following description of the characteristics of ship-generated environmental effects in narrow channels is adapted from several sources, including the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses PIANC (1987), Sorensen (1997), and Schiereck (2001).
Two main types of waves are generated by moving vessels, these are:
Primary wave (or drawdown wave); and, Secondary waves caused by discontinuities in the hull profile.
Page 15 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
3.1 PRIMARY WAVE (DRAWDOWN)
From a hydrodynamic perspective, flow near a moving ship is similar to flow around a fixed body such as a bridge abutment. As the ship moves, water flows past the vessel hull in the opposite direction of travel. This flow is known as the return current. The velocity head of the water flowing past the vessel causes the water level along the vessel’s length to fall in order to maintain the total head (energy) constant. Therefore the water level around the vessel is lowered. This water level depression is commonly referred to as the primary wave.
The combination of water level depression, front wave and transversal stern wave, together referred to as drawdown, acts like a long solitary wave with a length similar to that of the ship. Therefore, drawdown is generally not easily observed in the field, other than in the case of relatively large vessels sailing in confined channels. Drawdown does not break at the shoreline as normal waves, instead, it is more akin to a tidal pulse, rising and falling as the vessel passes.
The theoretical effects of a ship transiting a narrow channel can be derived from the Bernoulli equation (Schiereck, 2001). The primary wave height (z) and return current (ur) are defined as follows:
Where: h = Channel depth As = Cross sectional area of ship Ac = Cross sectional area of channel g = Gravitational constant
3.2 SECONDARY WAVES
A vessel in transit will produce a particular wake pattern which is outlined in Figure 3.1.
As the vessel displaces water during its passage a varying pressure distribution develops along the hull of the vessel producing an increased pressure at the bow and stern and a pressure drop along the midsection. The associated pressure gradients produce waves that propagate out from the bow and the stern of the vessel.
Page 16 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
Figure 3.1 Vessel wake pattern
The waves emanating from the bow (Figure 3.1) are commonly named bow wake and follow a diverging pattern along the path of the vessel as they propagate out from the sailing line. A series of transverse waves, stern waves, propagate along the sailing line in the direction opposite to the vessel transit.
The stern waves are typically smaller than the bow wake. The largest wave heights are encountered where the transverse waves and the diverging waves intersect along the cusp locus line. This has been found to form an angle of 19.28¡ relative to the sailing line.
A detailed derivation of vessel wake is highly complex as it depends on the particular hull shape of the vessel and the frictional resistance encountered by the wake as it propagates over the seabed. It is only with modern computational methods that solutions of the underlying equations of physics are gradually being developed through the use of high specification machines. As such, the bulk of present research has focused on developing semi-empirical relationships to describe the overall characteristics of vessel wakes. The main parameters governing vessel wake formation have been identified to be:
The speed of the vessel, with increasing speed yielding an increase in wave heights; The water depth, with decreasing water depth producing an increase in wave heights; The Froude Number, which relates the above parameters to the celerity of a shallow-water wave, and in the case of deep water, to the overall dimension of the vessel; and As waves propagate out from the sailing line, the wave height attenuates with distance travelled.
Page 17 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
Other parameters that affect wake formation, but less well understood in past research include the hull shape of the vessel, its draft, under keel clearance, and confinement of the water body surrounding the vessel.
Several approaches have been outlined by various researchers. The approach taken in the present study is that of Verhey and Bogaerts, ref. [3], because this method specifically addresses vessel wakes in the context of wave propagation and the effect of waves along the shore, and because this method is known to produce conservative estimates of wave heights. This method is the one which has been adopted by PIANC in the guidance provided in ref. [4].
The variation of wave height with distance can be described by:
Where Hi is the wave height, h is the water depth, s is the distance from the sailing line and Fs is the Froude number given by:
Where Vs is the vessel speed and g is the acceleration due to gravity.
The parameter 1 has been found to vary by vessel type and loading state. In the absence of other information a value of 1=1 is recommended as a value for predicting the mean estimate of wave heights
across a wide range of vessels with value of 1=1.2 as an upper bound of wave height estimates. A value of 3=4.0 has been confirmed in several field studies.
Research by Verhey and Bogaerts relates 1, the parameter which scales the magnitude of the wake
relative to the vessel hull shape as: 1 2D/Le, where D is the vessel draft and Le the entrance length. The entrance length is the distance from the vessel’s bow to the commencement of the parallel mid- body section and is a measure of the curvature of the bow.
Additional characteristics proportions of the wake characteristics can be determined as follows per ref. [2]. The speed of wake propagation (celerity) is given by:
Page 18 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
Where C is the celerity, Vs is the vessel speed, and is the angle of wave propagation with respect to the sailing line as defined in Figure 2. The angle of wave propagation has been found to be related to the Froude Number as follows:
Where F is the Froude Number and e is the exponential function.
The wave length is determined from the dispersion relation given by:
Where C is the celerity, h is the water depth, L is the wave length, and g the acceleration due to gravity.
The wave period, T, can be resolved from:
T = L/C
4 SHIP WASH AT THE BULL WALLS
4.1 PRIMARY WAVES (DRAWDOWN)
The combination of water level depression, front wave and transversal stern wave, referred to as drawdown, acts like a long solitary wave with a length similar to that of the ship. Drawdown does not break at the shoreline as normal waves, instead, it is more like a tidal pulse, rising and falling as the vessel passes.
If very large Cruise Ships, in excess of 300m length, were allowed to operate at 9 knots then the calculations show that the drawdown at times of low water would be up 0.5m and the return current velocity would be about 0.9 m/s. Such a significant drawdown would create problems for ferries moored on berths as the ferries would drop by about 0.5m as the large cruise liner passes. This led to the reduction in the speed limit to 6 knots for the large cruise liners operating within Dublin Port.
Calculations show that at a speed of 6 knots the greatest drawdown created by the large cruise liner would be about 0.15m with return velocity of 0.47 m/s at LAT and 0.084m drawdown with return velocity of 0.26 m/s at MHWS. These calculated values have been shown to be in accordance with the values experienced on site.
Calculations using the equations presented in Section 3.1 demonstrate that for the larger ferries using Dublin Port, which operate at 9 knots in the channel, the drawdown when the tidal level is at LAT will be 0.195m with a return current velocity of 0.405 m/s. The wave length will be 225m thus the wave
Page 19 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
steepness will be extremely low and the drawdown will have no significant influence on either the stability of the Great South Wall or the North Bull Wall.
At mean high water spring tide levels the drawdown will be even less at 0.103m with a return current velocity of 0.218 m/s.
4.2 SECONDARY WAVES (VESSEL WAKE WAVES)
Figure 4.1 Ship wash intersecting wall line
When a ship passes a bank or boundary wall the structure will experience a series of waves as the ship passes, Figure 4.1. The wake around the cusp line will produce the largest waves which typically will consist of a packet of about 5 larger waves followed by a series of smaller waves which have very much less energy than those around the cusp line. The calculations using the equations in Section 3.2 give the properties of the waves around the cusp line.
The ship wash will have the greatest effect on the Bull Walls when the vessels are leaving the port on the southern side of the channel. A typical ship sailing route is shown in yellow in Figure 4.2. The sailing line shown in Figure 4.2 is about 166 metres distance from the main section of the Great South Wall and a similar distance from the North Bull Wall. This distance reduces to about 90 metres as the ship approaches the outer end of the Bull Walls.
Page 20 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
Figure 4.2 Typical sailing line (yellow) of ship departing Dublin Port
Taking the largest ferry using Dublin Port travelling at the speed limit of 9 knots, calculations using the equations in Section 3.2 give the wash wave lengths and wave periods as 8.689 metres and 2.36 seconds respectively. At the main part of the Great South Wall and the emerged section of the North Bull Wall, the wash wave heights for a ferry sailing at a time of LAT will be 0.117 metres. At a tidal level of MHWS the wash wave height along the same sections will reduce to from 0.117 metres to 0.092 metres.
As the sailing line gets closer to the outer end of the Bull Walls the ferry wash wave heights will increase so that as the ferry approaches the lighthouse at the end of the Wall the wash wave heights will be 0.147 metres and 0.117 metres for ferry sailings at LAT and MHWS respectively. These waves will have wave periods of about 2.36 seconds will typically impact any point on both walls for about 15 seconds as the ferry sails past.
5 COMPARISON OF WASH AND WIND WAVES The wash disturbance experienced by the Bull Walls due to ferry movements has to be considered in context of the wave energy due to natural wind wave generation.
5.1 THE GREAT SOUTH WALL
The inner face of the Great South Wall is exposed to wind waves from the sector 300o to 070o. Waves generated by winds of Beaufort F4 have been simulated using the MIKE21 SW wave model of Dublin
Page 21 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
Port and presented in Figure 5.1 overleaf. These simulations demonstrate that the wave heights approaching the northern side of the Great South Wall under Beaufort Force 4 conditions are similar to the wash wave heights at the wall when the ferries are travelling at 9 knots.
Hourly wind records for Dublin Airport obtained from Met Éireann or the period 1980 to 2019 indicate that the over water wind speeds in Dublin Port from the sector 300o to 070o equal or exceed Beaufort Force 4 for an average of 410 hours per year (4.68% of the year).
The number of ferry movements varies on a weekly basis, but typically there are on average c.38 movements per 24 hours using 5 different berths. This could increase to an average of about 46 movements per 24 hours with the additional ferry berth in the MP2 Project area. With each ferry movement resulting in 15 seconds of wake at either wall, the wash wave associated with ship the additional ship movements would occur for an equivalent period of 69 hours per year (i.e. 0.79% of the year). The natural wind wave climate approaching the Great South Wall will therefore be equal or greater than the wash wave height for 410 hours per year i.e. almost 6 times more frequently.
Furthermore, the natural wind wave heights for winds in excess of F4 will have much more wave energy than the wash heights. For the equivalent period of the ferry wash, the natural wind wave heights at the Great South Wall will have an average significant wave height of 0.25 metres. Given that wave energy is a squared function of wave heights, the wave energy associated with the naturally occurring waves will be >4.5 times greater than the energy associated with the ferry wash waves.
5.2 THE NORTH BULL WALL
Based on the MIKE 21 SW simulations, it was found that the outer section of the North Bull Wall can be exposed to 2m waves with corresponding wave periods of c.7.5 seconds during easterly storms. The wave energy associated with the 0.125m ferry wash wave was found to be less than 0.40% of the wave energy associated with the naturally occurring wave and was therefore considered in significant.
It is therefore concluded that the potential damage to the either the Great South Wall or North Bull wall from the increased ferry movements resulting from the MP2 Project are de minimis and a fraction of the wave energy which attacks the Bull Walls under naturally occurring conditions.
Page 22 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
Figure 5.1 Wave heights at Great South Wall with Beaufort F4 winds from 300o, 345o and 060o
Page 23 of 26
Dublin Port MP2 Project Ship wake Assessment Study ______
6 REFERENCES
1. References Kriebel, D. and W. M. Seelig. 2005. An Empirical Model for Ship-generated Waves. Proceedings from the Fifth International Symposium on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis.
2. Sorensen, R. M. 1997. Prediction of Vessel-Generated Waves with Reference to Vessels Common to the Upper Mississippi River System (ENV Report 4). Report prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island, St. Louis, and St. Paul, Bethlehem, PA. 30 pp.
3. Verhey, H. J. and M. P. Bogaerts. 1989. Ship Waves and the Stability of Armour Layers Protecting Slopes. Delft Hydraulics Publication No. 428 (pp. 12). Paper presented at the 9th International Harbour Congress, Antwerp, Belgium, 20-24 June 1989. 4. World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC). 1987. Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Flexible Revetments Incorporating Geotextiles for Inland Waterways. Report of Working Group 4 of the Permanent Technical Committee - Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress.
Page 24 of 26
APPENDIX 2 Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology Soil chemical parameters in the Dublin Port area
Page 25 of 26
Soils, Geology and Hydrogeology - soil chemical parameters in the Dublin Port area as recorded in the SURGE report compared against the concentrations in soil samples recorded from the intrusive ground investigation
Chemical SURGE Report Average and Max Concentrations in Dublin concentration recorded in Port mg/kg ground investigation mg/kg Arsenic 11.1 Ð 16.8 Average = 28.30 Maximum = 90.0 Barium 133 - 175 Average = 137.4 Maximum = 620.0 Beryllium 1.91 Ð 11.3 Average = 1.1 Maximum = 3.1 Boron 22 - 34 Average = 1.60 Maximum = 8.0 Cadmium 1.44 Ð 2.07 Average = 0.9 Maximum = 4.0 Copper 35.0 Ð 6,480 Average = 54.8 Maximum = 390 Chromium 44.3 Ð 53.9 Average = 18.1 Maximum = 35.0 Iron 19,900 Ð 24,200 Average = 12,204.2 Maximum = 22,000.0 Lead 129 - 238 Average = 262.9 Maximum = 1,600.0 Mercury 0.206 Ð 0.636 Average = 0.4 Maximum = 2.1 Nickel 28.1 Ð 41.0 Average = 32.9 Maximum = 75.0 Vanadium 51.9 Ð 62.6 Average = 29.2 Maximum = 64.0 Zinc 397 Ð 8,390 Average = 196.4 Maximum = 1,100.0 Polycyclic Aromatic 0.39 Ð 11.1 Average = 23.2 Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Maximum = 200.0 PolyChlorinated Method Detection Limit Method Detection Limit Biphenyls (PCBs) (<0.003) (<0.001)
Page 26 of 26
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF PAUL CHADWICK
AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE
Page 1 of 7
1 Qualifications and Experience
1.1.1 My name is Paul Chadwick and I am a Technical Director with the RPS Group in Ireland. I hold an honours degree in Natural Sciences (Chemistry) from Trinity College Dublin and a Master’s Degree for research in the field of Atmospheric Chemistry from the Dublin Institute of Technology.
1.1.2 I have over 20 years’ experience in environmental consultancy in Ireland. I have been involved in numerous Environmental Impact Assessments for major projects in the transport, waste management, commercial and energy sectors. I have experience in monitoring ambient air, modelling emissions and preparing environmental impact assessment in relation to port projects including the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project at Dublin Port and the Port Capacity Extension at the Port of Foynes. I have been engaged as an air quality expert in assessing a wide range of projects at Dublin Port since 2013.
2 Involvement in the Project
2.1.1 I am the author of Chapter 10 of the EIAR, which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on the 11th July 2019. This assessment was also included as Appendix 2 of the Natura Impact Statement submitted for this application.
3 New Baseline Air Quality Information
3.1.1 Following lodgement of the application in July 2019, two additional reports have been released by the EPA in relation to air quality that are of relevance to the proposed development and these reports are summarised in this statement for context.
3.1.2 On 25 September 2019, after the submission of the application for permission in respect of the MP2 Project, the EPA annual air quality report for 2018 was published. In these annual reports, the EPA monitors and reports air pollutant levels around Ireland and compares them to the legally binding EU limit values for the protection of human health to determine the State's compliance with the EU Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe Directive (2008/50/EC).
3.1.3 In 2018, all levels of air pollutants were in compliance with the EU limits for the protection of human health at all monitoring stations, which was the same as the findings every year since 2013 illustrating the comparatively good air quality that Ireland experiences. Annual trend analysis presented as part of this EPA reporting shows a slight decreasing trend in air pollution levels since 2003 as a result of emissions controls imposed on cars sold in the EU.
3.1.4 The annual EPA reports are referenced in the EIAR/NIS for the period 2015 to 2017 and the recent 2018 data is now referenced for completeness. The following table presents the data for 2015, 2016 and 2017 (for the Zone A Dublin City area) and the newly published 2018 data. The 2018 data included shows that the levels are within the typical annual variations noted in the city. As such, the additional information supplied for the 2018 monitoring report from the EPA does not materially alter the findings of the information supplied in the application.
Page 2 of 7
Parameter 2015 Data from 2016 Data from 2017 Data from 2018 Data EIAR EIAR EIAR Annual Average NO2 20 24 21 25 (µg/m3) Annual Average PM10 14 14 12 14 (µg/m3) Annual Average PM2.5 6 9 8 8 (µg/m3) Annual Average SO2 1.6 1.2 1.7 2.1 (µg/m3) Annual Average CO 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 (mg/m3) Annual Average 0.92 1.01 0.92 0.3 Benzene (µg/m3)
3.1.5 The EPA also released a stand-alone report ‘Urban Environmental Indicators: Nitrogen dioxide levels in Dublin’ in July 2019 which focussed on NO2 only in Dublin City. This report is separate to the annual EPA reports and cannot be used to determine compliance with EU legislation but is an assessment based on indicative methods including diffusion tubes and dispersion modelling. The results of these spatial assessments are indicative only and illustrate areas of the city when air pollution levels are higher.
3.1.6 Under the applicable Regulations [S.I. 180 of 2011], where the levels of pollutants in ambient air exceed any limit value or target value in an area an air quality management plan is required in order to achieve the related limit value. Following elevated levels of NO2 in the city centre in 2009, the EPA requested the four Dublin local authorities to prepare an Air Quality Management Plan to improve levels of NO2 in the Dublin region and comply with the limit value. As noted earlier, the levels of monitored NO2 in the Dublin area have all been in compliance with the limits for the protection of human health in recent years.
3.1.7 Finally, in line with Dublin Port Company’s environmental commitments, the company is working with DCC and the EPA to install two permanent air monitoring stations within the port in 2020. These monitors will then be used as part of the EPA and local authority monitoring network with data presented in the EPA annual reports.
4 Conclusions on Air Quality and Climate
4.1.1 As set out in detail in Chapter 10 of the EIAR and with regard to the information gathered to date, I conclude the following in relation to the proposed development:
While dusts, traffic emissions and odours may pose a slight short term adverse impact during construction, these will be mitigated through good working practices and no significant adverse impact is predicted for the construction phase.
Construction phase greenhouse gas emissions from material use and transport will result in a permanent slight adverse impact for climate.
Operational phase road traffic emissions will increase on the road network around the port as a result of the project but these increases are classed as negligible using
Page 3 of 7
Transport Infrastructure Ireland assessment criteria. However, a permanent slight adverse impact on climate from road traffic emissions is predicted.
Greenhouse gas emissions and air emissions from shipping during the operation of the proposed development will result in a permanent slight adverse impact for both climate and air quality. 4.1.2 In addition, the additional EPA baseline information presented in Section 3 of this statement does not materially alter the findings of the information supplied in the application.
5 Submissions and Responses
5.1.1 In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on air quality and climate. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential point being made.
5.1 Dublin City Council
Issue#1 Ð Appendix C of the Dublin City Council (DCC) submission includes recommendations from the Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit of DCC for monitoring and mitigation.
Response:
All of the listed recommendations are accepted by Dublin Port Company.
5.2 Councillor Cooney, Dublin Bay North Green Party
Issue#1 Ð Use of outdated baseline air quality. Submission:
Councillor Cooney states that the data presented on page 287 of the NIS in relation to ambient air quality is outdated.
Response:
This is not the case. The information provided in Chapter 10 of the EIAR and Appendix 2 of the NIS is based on the following sources of information:
EPA Ambient Air Quality Reports released annually. Data up to 2017 is referenced in the application; and
Dublin Port monitoring data from 2014 up to 2018. The EPA information was the latest publicly available dataset at the time of lodging the application in July 2019 and hence the information is fully up to date with existing trends and levels. The additional information for 2018 published by the EPA, as outlined in Section 3 of this brief, does not materially alter the baseline presented.
Furthermore, data is referenced in the EIAR/NIS from Dublin Port Company’s own
Page 4 of 7
monitoring network at the port and environs up to December 2018. As such, the data supplied by Dublin Port Company in the application is more up to date than the EPA monitoring network and represents a highly robust and recent dataset on air quality in the area. While Dublin Port Company’s data cannot be used to determine compliance with the limits for the protection of human health, it can be used as indicative data to support the EPA levels.
In summary, the data presented in the EIAR/NIS on ambient air quality included the most up to date publicly available EPA monitoring data from 2017 coupled with Dublin Port Company’s own monitoring up to end of 2018. As such, the two datasets represent a comprehensive and up to date reflection of the existing air quality spatial and temporal trends in the study area.
Issue#2 Ð Reference to July 2019 baseline air quality data from the EPA. Submission:
Councillor Cooney states that ‘results so far in July 2019 particularly at the port tunnel exits show levels above the legal limits that are a danger to human health from NO2 levels’. Councillor Cooney also states that ‘any increased activity should be measured against these results’ and further states that ‘the EU ambient air quality directive requires a local area plan and activities may need to be limited or cease if causing danger to human health’.
Response:
This statement misinterprets the EPA indicative report of July 2019 as referenced in Section 3 of this brief. The EPA report does include details of dispersion modelling of NO2 in Dublin but these are virtual predicted results rather than actual monitoring results. This modelling does indicate that while the majority of the city is well below the annual EU limit for NO2, there are some areas which show modelled levels above this limit Ð including the M50 corridor and the exits to the port tunnel. The results presented in the EIAR/NIS from the Dublin Port monitoring network do reflect these modelled levels with a number of elevated NO2 levels recorded within the port area. In this regard, the actual monitored data within the port as presented in the EIAR/NIS is a more accurate representation of the air quality within the port. It is also noted that Schedule 3 of the Air Quality Regulations (S.I. No. 180 of 2011) specifically states that compliance with the limit values for the protection of human health do not apply at any location where members of the public do not have access, where there is no fixed habitation or at industrial installations. In this regard, the elevated levels within the port will not pose a risk to human health from air quality. In short, the baseline data presented within the application is valid as this is based on the latest fully validated dataset from the EPA that is specifically employed to assesses for compliance with the limits for the protection of human health. The impact of the proposed development is compared to this baseline as per standard practice and there is no validity to the suggestion that indicative baseline data from a supplementary modelling report should be employed in the analysis. Councillor Cooney is correct in stating that where levels pose a risk to human health an air quality plan is required. As outlined earlier, such a plan has been prepared for the Dublin region by the four Dublin local authorities for the period 2009-2012 and a supplemental
Page 5 of 7
report in 2011 for NO2. The impacts of the proposed development have been considered by the Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit of Dublin City Council and the necessary controls to limit air emissions are outlined in the Dublin City Council submission. As stated, these controls are fully accepted by Dublin Port Company for implementation.
Issue#3 Ð Baseline PM10 levels exceeding WHO guidelines for human health. Submission:
Councillor Cooney observes that current levels of PM10 are above the World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines at the Breakwater Road South and at the port lands adjacent to Tom Clarke Bridge.
Response:
These levels are clearly presented in Table 10-11 on page 10-19 of Volume II of the EIAR and represent the monitoring undertaken by Dublin Port Company for the period 2014 to 2018. It should be noted that, at all locations, the levels of PM10 are below the statutory limit for the protection of human health under S.I. No. 180 of 2011. However, as is set out in the EIAR, the levels are above the stricter WHO guideline.
Similarly, the EPA monitoring station in Ringsend indicates levels of PM10 below the statutory limit but at the WHO Guideline (2017 and 2018) indicating that PM10 levels are elevated at the east coast of the city relative to the rest of the city. The EPA 2018 report states that PM10 can be made up of several sources including natural sources such as wind-blown sea salt and man-made sources such as pollution from road transport. These sources are referenced in the EPA annual reports as potential reasons for elevated PM10 at the east of the city. However, even in these locations, it should be noted that existing PM10 levels are within the statutory parameters set by S.I. No. 180 of 2011, and the development of the MP2 Project will not cause these statutory limits to be exceeded. Issue#4 Ð Project Mitigation and the National Clean Air Strategy. Submission:
Councillor Cooney states that the mitigation presented in the application and the Government’s proposed ‘National Clean Air Strategy’ are unlikely to become effective in the short to medium term.
Response:
It is expected that the Government’s first ‘Clean Air Strategy’ will be published in early 2020 but the timeframe for implementation is unknown. However, in the event that permission is granted by the Board, the implementation of the project specific mitigation measures presented in the application documentation is required in advance of the commencement of the construction and operation phases of the development, respectively. In this regard, the mitigation relevant to the proposed development will be implemented in full with the construction and operation of the proposed development.
Page 6 of 7
5.3 Peadar Farrell
Issue#1 Ð Potential impact of operational shipping on air quality. Submission:
Mr. Farrell states that ‘The following has not been addressed with these ships: The Air pollution caused by the dirty fuel they burn’.
Response:
This contention is incorrect and the potential shipping emissions from the proposed MP2 project and wider Masterplan have been presented in Section 10.1.13.2 of Chapter 10 of Volume 2 of the EIAR. This includes an estimation of the existing shipping emissions coupled with an estimation of the potential increases in emissions associated with the growth in shipping numbers. The analysis predicts that air emissions from shipping will result in a permanent slight adverse impact for both climate and air quality.
In addition, the relevant legislation pertaining to the control of quality of shipping fuels is also provided within this section highlighting the increasing level of regulation of these shipping fuels and the projected decreases in emissions in future years. This includes the impending restriction on permissible sulphur content limits in all shipping fuels which will come into force on 1 January 2020.
6 Conclusion
6.1.1 Having carefully considered the two submissions from third parties in relation to air quality and climate, the Board may conclude that the findings of Chapter 10 of the EIAR are correct. As such, the conclusions presented in Section 4 of this statement in relation to Air Quality and Climate are unchanged.
6.1.2 The mitigation and monitoring recommendations proposed by Dublin City Council are accepted and these recommendations will be implemented by DPC to monitor the air quality impacts presented in Chapter 10 of the EIAR.
6.1.3 In conclusion, with the implementation of the mitigation measures listed in the EIAR, the proposed development is not predicted to have any adverse impact on local air quality during the construction or operation phases of development and levels of air pollutants will remain within the prescribed limits for the protection of human health at sensitive receptors.
Page 7 of 7
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT IN RELATION TO
ECOLOGY (EIA) JAMES McCRORY
16 DECEMBER 2019
Page 1 of 24
1 Qualifications and Experience
James McCrory (Lead Witness) 1.1.1 My name is James McCrory. I am a Senior Associate in RPS. I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in Plant Science from the University of Dublin, Trinity College and a Master of Science degree with Distinction in Habitat Creation and Management from Staffordshire University. I am a Chartered Ecologist and Chartered Environmentalist with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management; and a Chartered Biologist with the Royal Society of Biology.
1.1.2 I have over eighteen years’ experience managing ecological survey and assessment contracts as part of EIA Directive and Habitats Directive appraisal processes. I have undertaken ecological surveys and assessment and prepared biodiversity chapters of EIARs for a range of projects involving dredging and discharges to the marine environment. These include a number of significant coastal development projects in Dublin Port and Dublin Bay, Cork Harbour, Belfast Lough, Carlingford Lough and in the Shannon Estuary.
Gerard Morgan 1.1.3 Mr Morgan holds an honours BSc and MSc degree in Zoology from University College Cork. He is a specialist in anthropogenic impacts in freshwater, estuarine and near- shore aquatic habitats.
1.1.4 He has over 25 years’ experience in environmental consultancy and he has prepared ecological impact assessments for a wide range of infrastructural and land-use projects including several port developments, among them the ABR Project. He has also undertaken along with colleagues all of the benthic and fisheries monitoring surveys conditioned in the ABR grant of permission since 2016.
Dr Simon Berrow 1.1.5 Dr Berrow holds an honours degree in Applied Biology from Liverpool Polytechnic and a PhD in Zoology from NUI, University College, Cork. He is a part-time lecturer at the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology contributing to the Applied Freshwater and Marine Biology degree and Masters programmes and currently supervises four PhD students. He is a founder member and current CEO of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group and has been working on whales and dolphins in Ireland since 1989. He has published the results of his research on marine mammals in peer-reviewed journals, with over 100 publications to date.
1.1.6 He has been involved in environmental consultancy and assessment since 1991 and he has prepared ecological impact assessments for a range of marine projects from offshore windfarms to cable laying, and SAC site designation to monitoring. He has managed four dedicated harbour porpoise surveys of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC on behalf of the NPWS.
Richard Nairn 1.1.7 Mr Nairn holds an honours degree in Natural Sciences from Trinity College Dublin and a Masters degree in Zoology from University College Cork. He is a Chartered Environmentalist and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management. He is a former director of IWC-BirdWatch Ireland. He has been a
Page 2 of 24
professional ornithologist since 1980 and he has comprehensive knowledge of waterbird ecology and survey methodology. He has published the results of his research on birds in peer-reviewed journals. He is also the author of two relevant books entitled Bird Habitats in Ireland (2012) and Dublin Bay: Nature and History (2017).
1.1.8 Richard has 30 years’ experience in environmental consultancy and he has prepared ecological impact assessments for over 250 projects including roads, pipelines, port developments, sewage treatment works and industrial developments. He was an expert witness for the Oral Hearing into Dublin Port Company application for the ABR Project. He was also the lead ecologist in relation to the proposed extension of Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Grace Glasgow 1.1.9 Ms Glasgow holds a Master of Engineering Degree (with Distinction) in Civil Engineering from the Queen’s University of Belfast. She is a chartered Water and Environmental Manager, a chartered Scientist and a chartered Engineer. She is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, a Fellow of Engineers Ireland and a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
1.1.10 She is a director with RPS’s Water Environment team and has been a professional consultant since 1991. Over the course of her 28 years’ experience she has prepared environmental impact assessments for several significant marine and terrestrial infrastructure projects (including marine outfalls, pipelines, ports and industrial development). In addition she has gained extensive experience in water quality assessment including the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in an Irish context, contributing to several EPA and Departmental publications supporting River Basin Management Planning.
Stephen Cleary 1.1.11 Mr Cleary holds an honours degree in Natural Sciences from Trinity College Dublin, a Masters Degree in Applied Environmental Sciences from Queens University Belfast and a Postgraduate Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control from the Institute of Acoustics. He is also a Member of the Institute of Acoustics (MIOA), a Member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (MIEMA) and a Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv).
1.1.12 He has over 20 years’ experience in environmental consultancy and approximately 15 years’ as a specialist in the area of Environmental Noise/Acoustics. He has completed detailed noise assessments for a broad range of proposal types including road schemes, wind farms, mixed use masterplans, mining/quarry operations, housing developments, renewables projects, waste projects, industrial development, commercial enterprises, ports, electricity infrastructure, and leisure facilities. In the area of ports, he has worked on many port related projects throughout Ireland including Ringaskiddy Port, Shannon Foynes Port, Belfast Harbour, Greenore Port and Galway Port. He has considerable experience of all stages of the planning and licensing processes and has acted as an expert witness on many occasions for planning and statutory nuisance related cases.
Page 3 of 24
Eugene McKeown 1.1.13 Mr McKeown holds a degree (B.E.) in Mechanical Engineering from University College Dublin (1980), a degree in Law (LLB) from the National University of Ireland, Galway (1997) and a Master of Science Degree (M.Sc.) in Applied Acoustics, from the University of Derby (2005).
1.1.14 He is a Senior Consultant with RPS and he has over thirty-five years engineering experience specialising in noise and vibration.
1.1.15 He has been involved in over 200 Environmental Noise Studies, which have included carrying out underwater noise measurements and modelling underwater noise in Dublin Bay for the ABR Project and the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant marine outfall projects and also the EPA STRIVE project on Ocean Noise.
2 Involvement in the Project
James McCrory 2.1.1 I have been involved in the project since 2017 and have advised Dublin Port Company on ecological constraints since the inception of the project. My involvement culminated in the preparation of sections 7.2 and 7.6 (“the terrestrial biodiversity component”) of EIAR Chapter 7, which was submitted as part of the application for planning permission to An Bord Pleanála on 11 July 2019.
2.1.2 For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that this statement of evidence addresses the potential and likely significant biodiversity, water quality and noise effects of the MP2 Project on the environment in the context of the Environmental Impact Assessment to be carried out by An Bord Pleanála in respect of the Project.
2.1.3 A separate statement of evidence prepared by me addresses issues arising on the Habitats Directive assessments to be carried out by the Board.
Gerard Morgan 2.1.4 Mr Morgan is the author of Section 7.3 ‘Benthic Biodiversity and Fisheries’ of the EIAR.
Dr Simon Berrow 2.1.5 Dr Berrow is the author of Section 7.4 ‘Marine Mammals’ of the EIAR. He also manages delivery of the Marine Mammal Mitigation and Monitoring Plan on the ABR Project for Dublin Port.
Richard Nairn 2.1.6 Mr Nairn is author of section 7.5 ‘Avian Biodiversity’ of the EIAR, and has previously undertaken monitoring of waterbird populations in the vicinity of Dublin Port each year from 2009 to 2019. As part of MP2 Project, he undertook specific monitoring of breeding Black Guillemots, breeding terns and wintering waterbirds in the vicinity of the proposed MP2 project.
Page 4 of 24
Grace Glasgow 2.1.7 Ms Glasgow is author of Section 9.1 ‘Water Quality’ of the EIAR and also contributed to Chapter 4 ‘Assessment of Alternatives’ and to Chapter 18 ‘Cumulative Effect and Environmental Interactions’. These sections are addressed within the statement of Dr Barr which concerns the over-arching environmental assessment process.
Stephen Cleary 2.1.8 Mr Cleary is author of Section 11.1 ‘Terrestrial Noise & Vibration’ of the EIAR. He also prepared the Noise Management Plan contained within the draft CEMP.
Eugene McKeown 2.1.9 Mr McKeown is author of Section 11.2 ‘Underwater Noise’ of the EIAR.
3 Conclusions of the relevant sections of the EIAR
3.1.1 Chapter 7 of the EIAR is the ‘Biodiversity, Flora and Fauna’ Chapter, and it identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the MP2 Project on biodiversity resources. The chapter comprises a biodiversity appraisal made up of a number of assessments undertaken by a variety of ecologists with expertise in the fields of terrestrial ecology, benthic and fisheries ecology, marine mammal ecology and avian ecology.
3.1.2 A separate statement of evidence addresses issues arising in the submissions and observations made to the Board on the Habitats Directive assessments to be carried out by the Board.
Terrestrial Biodiversity
3.1.3 Section 7.2 of Chapter 7 of the EIAR identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the MP2 Project on terrestrial flora and fauna.
3.1.4 Habitat surveys were conducted in 2018 and 2019. The MP2 Project site is dominated by buildings and artificial surfaces although 8 no. habitat types were identified throughout the site proposed for development. No rare or protected plants were identified during surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019. No invasive plant species listed in the Third Schedule of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011, as amended were identified during surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019. The MP2 Project site contains habitats of negligible or local value. A minor adverse magnitude of effect is predicted as a result of habitat loss.
3.1.5 Ground mammal surveys were conducted in 2018 and 2019. No badger setts, badger prints, badger latrines, or badger hairs were recorded during surveys. No otter holts, otter prints, otter couches, otter spraints or otter prey remains were recorded during surveys. The area comprised in the application for permission in respect of the MP2 Project is of negligible value to local populations of ground mammals. No effects on ground mammals will occur.
3.1.6 Bat surveys were conducted in spring and summer of 2018, and again in 2019. An activity survey, driven transect survey and inspection of buildings to be demolished
Page 5 of 24
was undertaken. No bat roosts were recorded in the buildings to be demolished or treeline to be removed. No bats were detected emerging from or returning to roosts, and no foraging or commuting bat activity was recorded during the walked and driven transect activity surveys. The area comprised in the application for permission in respect of the MP2 Project is of negligible value to local populations of bats. No effects on bats will occur.
3.1.7 The assessment of terrestrial biodiversity features concludes that there are no significant environmental effects predicted upon terrestrial biodiversity features as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed MP2 Project.
3.1.8 Mitigation and monitoring measures are not required.
Benthic Biodiversity and Fisheries 3.1.9 Basin infilling and other alterations to the port infrastructure will result in the net loss of approximately 2ha of soft sediment subtidal habitat. This habitat has an infaunal community typical of the Lower Liffey estuary of which it comprises a very small proportion (~0.4%). It is not important for either salmon or lamprey and is mainly used for feeding by resident marine and estuarine species. Its removal constitutes a slight, adverse and permanent impact.
3.1.10 The placement of 1.78ha of concrete mattresses along the channel side-slopes at Berth 53 will introduce a hard benthos faunal and floral biodiversity to the Port area which in turn will favour fish species typical of hard benthic habitats e.g. wrasse, pollack, certain gobies and butter fish etc. This will potentially be a slight positive, permanent impact depending on the degree on re-colonisation.
3.1.11 Dredging of 11.7 ha of soft benthic habitat over 4 years within the port area will constitute a temporary, slight adverse impact in terms of reduced feeding for resident fish species.
3.1.12 From a benthic perspective, a 12-month dredging campaign would result in greater ecological effects. Dredging and dredge spoil disposal activities are proposed to occur only between October and March and will give rise to elevated suspended solids in the water column whilst these activities ae being carried out. However, dispersion modelling has shown that this will be confined to the immediate area of the dredger. Fish avoid areas of elevated suspended solids and mortalities will therefore be low as a result due mainly to the temporary nature of exposure. Some mortality of bottom dwelling fish smothered during a given disposal event cannot be ruled out at the dumpsite. Overall however, this impact is likely to be slight, negative and temporary. The impact on Annex II species will be negligible.
3.1.13 The dredger will entrain some bottom dwelling fish in its path e.g. juvenile plaice and flounder, gobies, dragonet and pogge. However, the October-March dredging window means that most salmon smolts and adults will not be in the Lower Liffey at the time and therefore not susceptible. This window will also avoid the migratory period of many lampreys. This combined with the small size of the dredger drag-head (3.5m wide) in relation the channel width at any one point (200-400m) means that the risk to any species of conservation importance will be very low and no adverse impact is anticipated at the population level for either salmon or lamprey.
3.1.14 Impact piling of large tubular piles along the waterfront will give rise to very high underwater noise levels which, based on published research, could in turn give rise to
Page 6 of 24
fish mortalities in close proximity to the active pile. Modelling for this project (see Chapter 11) has estimated this high impact area as extending 12m from the active pile. However, piling is not continuous, requiring regular stops to align the pile.
3.1.15 Furthermore, piling will only occur during the day, not at all on Sundays, and only one large-pile impact rig will operate at any one time. In addition, as part of the mitigation measures, no riverside impact piling will proceed between March and May to avoid impacting most smolts. A combination therefore of the very small high impact zone around the single active pile as well as the non-continuous nature of the activity means that the vast majority of Annex II species (salmon and lamprey) are likely to migrate in and out of the Liffey completely unaffected by this activity. Accordingly, no adverse impact is expected to affect either salmon or lamprey at in the Liffey at the population level. However, in order to ensure that there is no negative impact, it is necessary for the dredging campaign to be curtailed, so as to avoid the three months of March, April and May.
Marine Mammals 3.1.16 The main potential direct impacts on seals will be exposure to demolition and piling operations within Dublin Port and on seals and harbour porpoise disturbance during dredging inside Dublin Harbour and along the approach channel and disposal of dredged material at the proposed disposal site. The likelihood of these impacts without mitigation is moderate, however, with the implementation of mitigation measures, there will be no residual impacts.
3.1.17 Potential indirect impacts may occur through long-term increases in vessel noise associated with increased marine traffic and potential impacts on preferred prey species through dredging and disposal. However, the likelihood of indirect impacts of disturbance on seals at Bull Island from activities in Dublin Port is low. No long-term impacts on fish distribution or abundance is predicted (see above summary on fisheries), and as such the likelihood of indirect impacts on prey abundance and distribution is low.
3.1.18 A Marine Mammal Management Plan and a Dredging Management Plan will be implemented for the duration of the proposed construction works, which will include all the mitigation measures specified in the relevant draft management plans included in the application for permission. Mitigation will involve implementation of the (NPWS) Guidelines (2014) to minimise the risk of injury or disturbance to marine mammals. In addition Static Acoustic Monitoring system will complement and extend the extensive database currently being collected as part of the ABR Project environmental monitoring programme. A hydrophone will be deployed at the eastern end of the port linked to a vessel identification system noise to monitor ocean noise in Dublin Port during the operational phase. Monthly counts of seals hauled out on Bull Island will also be undertaken to contribute to increasing knowledge of seals using this UNESCO World Heritage site.
Avian Biodiversity 3.1.19 As set out in detail in Section 7.5 of the EIAR, the potential impacts of the MP2 project on birds have been assessed for both construction and operational phases. The potential impacts of each of these phases of the project on birds were assessed separately.
Page 7 of 24
3.1.20 It is concluded that, following full implementation of the mitigation measures described in the EIAR (section 7.5.6), there will be no residual impacts on birds within the Port or in the wider area of Dublin Bay including designated areas.
Designated areas (other than European sites)
3.1.21 Section 7.6 of Chapter 7 of the EIAR identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the MP2 Project on designated sites.
3.1.22 This assessment considers six non-European designated sites, being: Proposed Natural Heritage Areas North Dublin Bay South Dublin Bay Dolphins, Dublin Docks Ramsar sites North Bull Island Sandymount Strand / Tolka Estuary UNESCO Biosphere Dublin Bay
3.1.23 In the absence of pollution prevention measures at construction phase, potentially significant environmental effects were predicted upon water quality and marine habitats in coastal zones of North Dublin Bay proposed Natural Heritage Area and South Dublin Bay proposed Natural Heritage Area, and core areas of the Dublin Bay Biosphere.
3.1.24 In the absence of disturbance control measures at construction phase, potentially significant disturbance or displacement effects were predicted upon waterbird populations of North Dublin Bay proposed Natural Heritage Area and South Dublin Bay proposed Natural Heritage Area.
3.1.25 Accordingly, mitigation and monitoring have been proposed and are specified in the draft Construction Environmental Management Plan.
3.1.26 There were no potentially significant environmental effects predicted on designated sites at operational phase.
3.1.27 There is no significant residual environmental effect upon these designated sites with effective implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Water Quality 3.1.28 As set out in detail in the EIAR, baseline water quality within the receiving environment was established through review of national monitoring data used to establish water quality status in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) and supporting environmental standards. Recent high-frequency monitoring data collected during Dublin Port Company's ABR Project was also reviewed.
Page 8 of 24
3.1.29 Using baseline water quality data and site specific water quality model simulation outputs, an assessment of the MP2 Project was conducted to determine the likelihood of significant impacts on water quality using the criteria for rating significance and magnitude as set out in the National Roads Authority (NRA) publication “Guidelines on Procedures for Assessment and Treatment of Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology for National Road Schemes” (NRA, 2008) and appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts were proposed, where necessary.
3.1.30 For the purposes of the Water Quality Assessment, the construction phase impacts associated with the MP2 Project include: increased suspended sediment levels; accidental release of highly alkaline contaminants; and general water quality impacts.
3.1.31 The project’s operational phase impacts represents an increase in the current normal day to day port activities. The principal potential sources of water quality impacts are: increased suspended sediment levels; general water quality impacts; and releases associated with the operation and maintenance of surface water drainage systems.
3.1.32 The Water Quality Chapter concluded that in circumstances where the appropriate mitigations measures as highlighted in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) and draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) are fully implemented during the construction and operational phases, the impact of the MP2 Project on the water quality in the area will be imperceptible.
3.1.33 The MP2 Project will not have a significant effect on the water quality of the receiving waters. It can therefore be concluded that the MP2 Project works are compliant with the requirements and environmental objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive and the other relevant water quality objectives for these water bodies.
Terrestrial Noise and Vibration 3.1.34 In order to assess worst-case construction noise levels from the proposed redevelopment, a noise model was created which included 49 items of large plant active continuously and simultaneously at the nearest point of activity to the nearest noise sensitive properties. This model is worst-case as it represents a level of construction plant activity that is significantly greater than what is expected to be active at any one time during the construction process. The worst-case scenario predicted construction noise levels from the proposed redevelopment are substantially below the noise threshold limits for construction noise as presented in the NRA Guidelines and BS5228:2009+A1:2014 at the nearest noise sensitive properties. They are also below existing ambient (LAeq) noise levels in all areas. On this basis, the magnitude of impact is negligible and Neutral in accordance with the significance criteria outlined in the EIAR.
3.1.35 Construction traffic noise will be less than 1dB(A) on all relevant road links, which equates to a negligible magnitude of impact and to a neutral significance in accordance with the criteria set out in the EIAR.
3.1.36 Construction phase vibration levels at the nearest receptors will be neutral in accordance with the magnitude levels and significance criteria outlined in the EIAR.
3.1.37 Operational phase plant/equipment noise will be Neutral in accordance with the magnitude levels and significance criteria outlined in the EIAR.
Page 9 of 24
3.1.38 The EIAR presented traffic noise changes as a result of the proposed redevelopment for opening year (2026) and a future year (2040) scenario. These traffic noise changes are negligible on the basis of the impact magnitudes listed in the EIAR for short and long term changes. This equates to a significance level of neutral in accordance with the criteria outlined in the EIAR.
3.1.39 In order to ensure that there is no increase in noise impact from changes to vessel movements at the port, Dublin Port will maintain a Noise Management Plan in relation to the ongoing management of noise issues associated with Port activities.
Underwater Noise 3.1.40 The receiving environment is an enclosed area in which underwater noise has been shown to attenuate quickly due to absorption by the mud on the seabed. The site is noise sensitive due to the proximity of marine species including fish in the Liffey channel. The outer part of Dublin Bay is a popular recreational diving location.
3.1.41 The potential impact of underwater noise is set out in detail in Section 11.2 of the EIAR. The methodology includes baseline noise measurements (Section 11.2.3), underwater noise modelling (Section 11.2.5.4) which is based on site specific data and piling noise measurements undertaken at Alexandra Basin and an evaluation against national and international noise exposure thresholds (Table 11-27).
3.1.42 The worst case noise impacts will arise from piling during installation of quay walls and jetties. Dredging works including the disposal of the dredged material to the west of the Burford Bank and increased shipping traffic will result in localised, momentary, but not-significant increases in underwater noise levels.
3.1.43 The potential impact zones are set out in Table 11-30 and are summarised as follows:
Potential annoyance to recreational divers limited to 1 km; Potential injury to fish species is limited to 12 m from the source; Permanent Threshold Shift injury to marine mammals is limited to 1m from piling operations. 3.1.44 Proposals for monitoring of underwater noise levels are set out at pages 15 and 36 of the Summary of Mitigation Measures document. It is proposed that underwater noise levels will be monitored during the construction period at a minimum of two locations upriver and two locations downstream of the works when works are being carried out in the navigation channel. Monitoring will be carried out at the commencement of the piling activity. Any increase in underwater noise levels during construction can be considered as a not significant short-term adverse impact with no residual impact.
4 Submissions and Responses
4.1.1 In preparing this collective witness statement, the experts have considered each of the issues raised in the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on biodiversity, water quality and noise and their responses are provided below.
Page 10 of 24
Issue #1: Otters
Submission
4.1.2 Dublin City Council [DCC] Parks and Landscape Services Division requests that the Landscape Plan for the Greenway include specific measures for otter.
Response
4.1.3 Dublin Port Company acknowledges that otters continue to use the Tolka Estuary and marine waters adjacent to Dublin Port.
4.1.4 As set out in the witness statement of Helena Gavin, the Greenway development is permitted under planning permission Reg. Ref. 3084/16. the ecology reports submitted with planning application Reg. Ref. 3084/16 and 2684/17 (the latter application related to internal roads), respectively noted that, whilst otter spraint and areas suitable for otters to lie-up were observed along the base of the sea wall adjacent to Promenade Road, the overall impact predicted upon otters was ‘neutral’. Significant environmental effects upon otters were therefore not predicted.
4.1.5 The landscape and visual impact assessment report submitted with planning application Reg. Ref. 3084/16 and 2684/17 noted that the permitted Greenway development will remain above the high water mark and outside designated sites.
4.1.6 Mitigation proposed in the documentation submitted with planning applications Reg. Ref. 3084/16 and 2684/17 included visual screening and landscape planting along the seaward edge of the Greenway, additional planting of tree and shrub species to reinforce existing vegetation along the seaward edge of the Greenway, a pre- construction survey for otters, the use of lighting cowls for Greenway lighting to direct light only onto the Greenway, and retention of stretches of rock armour and boulders to facilitate unimpeded passage of otters. Pursuant to the grants of permission under Reg. Ref. 3084/16 and 2684/17, these mitigation measures will be implemented.
4.1.7 In the MP2 Project EIAR, no potential impacts upon otters are predicted (see Section 7.2.3.1 at p7-23) and as such there are no significant environmental effects upon otters. Accordingly, there is no requirement for mitigation and monitoring measures in relation to otters. In any event, it should be noted that as part of fisheries measures proposed for the MP2 Project, Dublin Port Company is committed to working with Inland Fisheries Ireland and third level academic institutions to explore fisheries enhancement measures within the framework of the MP2 Project area, concentrating in particular in optimising biodiversity and fisheries biomass associated with new harbour structures.
4.1.8 The measures outlined above in relation to the permitted Greenway development, in particular, are sufficient to prevent significant environmental effects upon otters occurring. Moreover, to incorporate further hard engineering measures, such as an artificial otter holt along the limited stretch of the permitted Greenway located within the red-line boundary of the proposed MP2 Project, would be inappropriate in circumstances where that portion of the Greenway will be accessed, and is intended to be accessed and used, by significant numbers of amenity users and the general public.
Page 11 of 24
Issue #2: Pollinators
Submission
4.1.9 DCC requests that (a) sites be identified for post-construction restoration of native flora and (b) the establishment of new planting areas be included by the Landscape Architect to provide for local pollinators.
Response
4.1.10 Section 7.2.2.1 of the EIAR (on p7-14) notes that recolonising bare ground habitats are typical of derelict / stony ground substrates in urban areas and they are of local importance for wildlife, particularly pollinators.
4.1.11 Section 7.2.3.1 of the EIAR notes that loss of these habitats within the MP2 Project site is largely due to construction pursuant to existing planning permissions for the internal roads and Greenway project (Reg. Ref. 3084/16 and 2684/17) along the seaward edge of the Port Estate. Development proposals implemented as part of the MP2 Project largely avoid this habitat along the seaward edge of the Port Estate, but results in loss of this habitat in association with redevelopment of yards within the Dublin Port operational zone containing buildings and artificial surfaces.
4.1.12 Minor adverse effects upon recolonising bare ground habitats are predicted as a result of the construction and operation of MP2 Project as outlined in Section 7.2.3.1 at p7- 22 of the EIAR. Significant environmental effects upon pollinators will not occur as a result of the loss of this ‘local (lower) / site’ valued habitat. Accordingly, mitigation and monitoring measures, including restoration and habitat creation, are not required as there is no significant environmental effect on pollinators.
4.1.13 The evidence of Mr Holbeach relates to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment at Chapter 15 of the EIAR, and he notes that no specific landscape mitigation is required. Managing hardstanding habitats within the operational MP2 Project area for biodiversity and pollinators is not compatible with the intended use of the lands within the Dublin Port operational zone.
4.1.14 In the context of the implementation of the permitted Greenway development, including that small section of the Greenway which is located within the red-line boundary of the MP2 Project application, Dublin Port Company will introduce planting of native flora species including a number of species of value to pollinators within its Greenway development landscape plan, to be implemented pursuant to the Greenway permissions.
Issue #3: Dredging & Piling in March
Submission
4.1.15 DCC requests that no piling or dredging should take place in March, in order to mitigate any potential impacts on migrating salmon smolts.
Response
4.1.16 The EIAR commits to no piling along the river front in the month of March. Research in Ireland and internationally strongly suggest that, while some smolts will descend the Liffey in March, the vast bulk of smolt migration will normally take place later than
Page 12 of 24
March, so that even if dredging does occur in that month, the risk to smolts at a population level will be negligible not just because of the timing but also because of the practicalities of the dredging effort which would indicate that the vast majority of migrating smolts will not come into the path of the dredger. Clearly, by committing to ensure that no piling occurs in March, for sound ecological reasons, there will be an impact on the construction programme.
Issue #4: Benthic Impacts
Submission
4.1.17 DCC refers to habitat loss due to infilling and to IFI raising the issue of ‘the marked long-term decline in salmon numbers migrating through Inner Liffey channel’ and ‘also the importance of maintaining the benthic community for protection of fishery interests’. DCC additionally raise the issue of a ‘need to create rough surfaces to encourage marine growth’.
Response
4.1.18 Infilling of Oil Berth 4 in the port and associated changes and enhancements to benthic habitats in the development area will have no effect whatever on the status of salmon in the River Liffey because salmon only use the lower estuary as a transit corridor for inward and outward migration. Salmon do not spawn there and they do not feed there. The resident fish community will be affected by changes to the benthic habitat. However, not all fish present will be equally affected. For example, pelagic species such as herring, sprat, juvenile mullet and pipe fish rely on food resources in the water column i.e. zooplankton and phytoplankton rather than on the benthos, in the main, and therefore will be very little affected by these alterations. Bottom dwelling species such as juvenile plaice, flounder, pogge, dragonet and small gadoids are more dependent on benthic habitats and therefore potentially more impacted by the proposal.
4.1.19 Moreover, as indicated in Section 7.3.4.1 of the EIAR (Part 2) the areas affected by the habitat infilling are so small in the context of the area of the Lower Liffey Estuary (under 0.4% in area) and even more so in the context of the wider Dublin Bay, that this potential impact has been classed as slight, adverse and permanent. However, notwithstanding that conclusion, it is observed in the same section of the EIAR that the introduction of 1.78ha of concrete mattresses to stabilise the dredged channel slopes adjoining Berth 53 will provide surfaces with the potential to encourage marine growth Ð as requested in the DCC submission Ð which has been classified in the EIAR as a slight positive and permanent impact.
4.1.20 DPC is currently supporting researchers investigating how best to improve port infrastructure in order to enhance marine growth on their surfaces. DPC is committed to liaising with IFI and third level institutions to design and implement a monitoring programme that can effectively assess the benefits of the constructed marine habitats for fisheries and biodiversity in the Lower Liffey Estuary during the lifetime of the MP2 project. The outcomes shall be made available to the public.
Page 13 of 24
Issue #5: Access to data
Submission
4.1.21 DCC states that it is essential that it has access to the data from the marine mammal, avian and marine ecology monitoring programmes and not just the summary reports, and access to the seal count data (not just the summary reports )from Bull Island generated during MP2 monitoring commitments,
Response
4.1.22 The marine mammal ecologist employed on the ABR project has been actively engaging with DCC and the Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere management team. DPC will ensure that the MP2 Project ecological monitoring data is made available to DCC.
Issue #6: Black Guillemot
Submission
4.1.23 DCC states that it is unclear whether birds nesting close to pile driving in natural nesting sites are less exposed to noise and vibration compared to sites in man- made structures that may be more exposed to noise and vibrations.
Response
4.1.24 All nesting sites of Black Guillemot in Dublin Port are in artificial structures such as quay walls, ramps and drainage pipes and there are no natural sites. The degree of exposure to noise and vibration from pile-driving is more likely related to distance from the site and there is no evidence that this causes any negative impacts on the breeding of this species, as described at p7-89 in Section 7.5.5.1 of the EIAR.
Issue #7: Arctic and Common Tern
Submission
4.1.25 DCC suggests that it is unclear whether the relocated tern colony pontoon will have to be moved again as part of any future schemes and should be located to a position further than 250m from the site of construction works to reduce any potential disturbance to nesting birds. Clarification is required as to: a) whether or not the Applicant has conducted an analysis of the optimum location(s) for siting of the pontoons and b) if these are permanent locations or subject to further changes as part of the Masterplan for Dublin Port.
Response
4.1.26 The pontoons have been sited in optimum locations within Dublin Port to ensure that they will not be disturbed by shipping, construction work or accessible by ground predators. There is no requirement arising from the proposed MP2 Project to move the existing pontoons used by nesting tern species. If these pontoons are moved in the future it will be only during the non-nesting season and will be for maintenance or conservation reasons. DPC confirms that the pontoons will remain in position
Page 14 of 24
undisturbed between the months of March and September, and a condition in this regard is not required.
Issue #8: Drainage
Submission
4.1.27 DCC (Drainage Division) report, DCC Ref: PART X/0024: Appendix E states that:
There is no objection, subject to the developer complying with the Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works Version 6.0 (available from www.dublincity.ie). The development is to be drained on a completely separate foul and surface water system. Appropriate oil water separators and silt traps shall be installed on the internal drains as indicated on the drainage layout drawing no. CP1770-ATK-01-ZZ- M2-CE-0501, Rev.00. The development shall incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems in the management of surface water. Full details of these shall be agreed in writing with Drainage Division prior to commencement of construction
Response
4.1.28 Dublin Port Company notes that DCC Drainage Division has no objection to the proposed development.
4.1.29 All of the recommendations specified in the DCC report are reasonable and will be implemented by Dublin Port Company, in circumstances where those measures are contained within the development as proposed in the application for permission. With regard to Sustainable Drainage Systems the measures identified within the EIAR (silt traps and oil interception) and separated systems will be incorporated, with final details submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to the commencement of development.
Issue #9: Noise
Submission
4.1.30 Page 18 of DCC’s report states that “the Planning Authority considers the EIAR adequately addresses the issues in relation to noise and vibration”. Page 38 of the planning authority’s report outlines the mitigation measures that Dublin City Council deems to be appropriate for the proposed development under the heading of ‘Noise Control and Air Quality Control Ð Demolition and Construction Phase’.
Response
4.1.31 The applicant notes that the DCC report considers the Noise and Vibration assessment completed for the proposed MP2 project to be adequate and proposes appropriate mitigation measures to be adhered to during the construction/demolition phase. Dublin Port Company accepts the recommended noise mitigation measures, many of which are already contained in the EIAR and associated application documentation.
Page 15 of 24
Issue #10: Potential negative water quality effects
Submission:
4.1.32 Inland Fisheries Ireland’s submission contains comments in relation to:
Potential for sediments and pollutants to impact on water quality and associated impact on habitats/species requiring avoidance and mitigation by reduction and remedy. IFI also points to the importance of the Liffey channel within the study area for the passage of Annex II species such as lamprey and salmon as well its importance for spawning and feeding habitats for estuarine and marine species and point up how increased suspended solids associated with the construction and dredging could adversely impact these species. They stipulate that ‘all measures necessary should be taken to ensure protection of local aquatic ecological integrity, in the first place by complete impact avoidance and as a secondary approach through mitigation by reduction and remedy’. 4.1.33 In addition, Councillor Cooney’s submission states that:
Construction phase dredging and dredge spoil disposal may result in potential impacts on marine life and water quality in the form of suspended solids. The accumulated impacts of the ABR project and this proposal gives little time for recovering. Though the activity is ceased during March to May to lessen harm on fish life, with our wild salmon numbers at only five, per hundred, returning from sea any negative effects on returning salmon must be addressed.
Response
4.1.34 The potential concentrations of suspended sediments arising from dredging and disposal have been quantified in Section 12.5 of the EIAR, using numerical modelling supported by monitoring data obtained during the ABR project’s construction phase. Any potential associated impacts on water quality have been assessed in Section 9.1 of the EIAR.
4.1.35 The assessment concluded that the dredging and disposal operations required for the MP2 project will not result in any significant impact to water quality in terms of suspended sediments.
4.1.36 The numerical model referred to above also indicated that the dredging plume containing elevated levels of suspended solids would be spatially confined and temporary in duration and for this reason no significant adverse impacts are anticipated for either the migratory or resident fish community in the Liffey. It is important to note that migratory fish including salmon and lamprey regularly pass through high turbidity zones in estuaries (including in Ireland) where the concentrations of solids amount to several hundreds of milligrams per litre, i.e. generally much higher than the values predicted for the MP2 dredging.
4.1.37 The same numerical model predicted that most sediment deposited due to dredging would land in the dredge footprint and that adjoin habitat deposition rates would be very low (0.4g/m2) and therefore these habitats and any dependent fish species in the area will not be adversely impacted.
Page 16 of 24
4.1.38 None of the construction operations including dredging will prevent the passage of any Annex II fish, including Atlantic salmon. Furthermore, as the MP2 dredging will take place from October to March (spread across 4 annual campaigns) it will occur outside the main migratory window of both salmon smolts and adult salmon thereby greatly reducing the opportunity for adverse interactions.
4.1.39 Chapter 18 of the EIAR ‘Cumulative Effects and Environmental Interactions’ assesses the cumulative effects of all projects that have the potential to interact with MP2 Project. This includes potential water quality impact of the ABR Project dredging/disposal activities, together with the MP2 activities. The assessment confirms that temporal separation will mitigate any cumulative water quality effects of these projects.
4.1.40 Mitigation measures have been identified for dredging/disposal activities, which include the timing and scheduling of all port dredging and disposal works. These measures also have been informed by the ABR Project and will apply to all MP2 Project dredging/disposal activities.
4.1.41 ABR project monitoring of comparable dredging and disposal works, incorporating identical mitigation measures within this water environment, have demonstrated compliance with water quality standards throughout the works.
Issue #11: Water quality mitigation, authorisations and guidance
Submission:
4.1.42 Inland Fisheries Ireland’s submission contains comments in relation to:
Consultation requirements with IFI for Section 4 licenses for discharge of effluent. Requirements to provide comprehensive method statements and specification details for any settlement lagoons with proposed discharges. Achieving water quality protection during construction and operation via measures such as attenuation ponds, interception and hydro-brake facilities including maintenance of these features. Strict adherence to the mitigation measures identified in the MP2 Project EIAR and strict monitoring programmes to be put in place. Particularly noting adherence to those management plans for birds & marine ecology, water quality, dredging and pollution response. The responsibilities under the provisions of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 (as amended) and the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 (as amended), including the implementation of monitoring both during construction and operation phases. Recommendation that the “Guidelines for Protection of fisheries during construction works in and adjacent to waters (2016) are consulted, particularly to inform IFI 4-6 weeks ahead of diversion or channel works.
Response
4.1.43 Dublin Port Company notes the relevant authorisation references.
Page 17 of 24
4.1.44 This project entails the re-development brownfield lands already serviced by separate foul and storm systems and connected to appropriate interception and hydro-brake facilities. We have reviewed the latest guidance and Dublin Port Company and all of the relevant mitigations are already contained within the MP2 Project’s draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
4.1.45 The CEMP lists all the mitigation measures that will be strictly adhered to during the construction and operation of the MP2 Project. It details mitigation measures to control storm water runoff, the storage of fuel oil and chemicals, the on-site production of concrete and measures to minimise the impact of the MP2 Project on water quality during dredging operations.
4.1.46 These measures have already been set out in the EIAR and associated application documentation. The final details of any construction phase lagoons or ponds, and of the interception and hydro-brake facilities, incorporated within the drainage systems, will be submitted to the planning authority for agreement prior to the commencement of development.
4.1.47 In particular, Dublin Port Company notes the emphasis by IFI of the need for strict adherence to the mitigation measures and monitoring programmes identified in the MP2 Project EIAR. All of the listed recommendations will be implemented by Dublin Port Company.
Issue #12: Water quality environmental management systems and communications
Submission
4.1.48 Inland Fisheries Ireland’s submission contains comments in relation to:
Implementing comprehensive environmental management planning systems for construction activities (noting potential impacts from concrete/cement and other construction materials). Receipt of regular communication from the Environmental Facilities Manager including scheduled aquatic monitoring data reporting.
Response
4.1.49 All of the listed recommendations will be implemented by Dublin Port Company. With regard to observations relating to ongoing environmental management, Dublin Port Company confirms the following:
Dublin Port Company has a strong track record of a high standard of environmental protection and management through day to day port operations as well as ongoing construction of Capital Projects as demonstrated by the ABR Project. DPC was required to undertake water quality monitoring during ABR Project capital dredging between October and March. DPC has committed to undertaking year round water quality monitoring within the Lower Liffey and at the Burford Bank disposal site to ensure robust protection of the marine environment and for users of the inner Liffey channel.
Page 18 of 24
Four river monitoring buoys within the Lower Liffey provide high resolution water quality data with respect to the following parameters: Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature and Salinity. Telemetry capabilities notify DPC Environmental Facilities Manager if any pre- determined alarm level has been breached. This early warning system enables the responsible parties to quickly investigate and determine the cause of any breach and to take appropriate action. This water quality data is circulated to Dublin City Council on a monthly basis and discussed at the quarterly Liaison Group meetings. The water quality data collected from the river and disposal site sondes is shared with research organisations (Dublin City University, Maynooth University and University College Cork). This water quality monitoring and reporting system will be maintained for the duration of the MP2 Project. As requested in the IFI submission DPC will include IFI on the environmental monitoring distribution list ensuring the transfer of aquatic monitoring data on a scheduled basis. The MP2 Project’s draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) sets out the comprehensive minimum requirements which will be adhered to during the construction phase of the MP2 Project. This draft CEMP included with the application documentation will form part of the Contract Documents for the construction stage to ensure that the Contractor undertakes the works required to implement the mitigation measures to protect the integrity of the Liffey System and surrounding environment. 4.1.50 With regard to observations relating to communication and reporting, Dublin Port Company confirms the following:
Dublin Port Company has an established Liaison Group that was set up as part of the ABR Project and is part of company’s commitment to making information about activities relating to ongoing works in Dublin Port available to the relevant stakeholders while providing an environmental oversight of the construction phase of the ABR. The Liaison Group meets at quarterly intervals each year with an agenda and minutes taken of the meetings. The group includes representatives from DPC, the appointed Contractor, Dublin City Council (DCC) and The Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG) Foreshore Unit. It is proposed that this forum continues for the duration of construction of the MP2 Project. DPC would welcome the inclusion of IFI in the Liaison Group to discuss matters concerning fisheries and surface water quality (either via representation or as corresponding members).
Issue #13: Dredging and Disposal
Submission
4.1.51 Peadar Farrell submits (at Page 5) that ‘Dumping by Dublin Port now takes place 12 months of the year as they stitch different permissions together. In one application (as in this one) they boast that they will not dump or excavate the river from March to May
Page 19 of 24
because of smolts and lamprey running in the river. They also claim that they would not dump in the summer to avoid the porpoise calving season. But then they got an EPA licence for maintenance dumping and are now planned with it to dump in the above season’
Response
4.1.52 The proposed MP2 Project does not propose to dredge or dispose of dredged material at sea during the summer season. Dredging and disposal of dredged material from Dublin Port does not take place for 12 months of the year currently, nor will it be the case during the MP2 Project. The 425,000 m3 of dredge spoil earmarked for disposal for the MP2 project, to be disposed of over 4 seasons spread across 8 years between 2024 and 2032 will not commence until after the ABR dredging and disposal has been completed. While the dredging window for these campaigns will extend for a 6-month period October to March, actual dredging will occupy a much shorter period of time within that window, as is the case currently with the ABR dredging and disposal campaign. In similar vein, while the port requests a summer dredge window for maintenance dredging that could extend from April to September, the actual dredging is usually completed in a much shorter time-scale of 4-6 weeks during this period.
Issue #14: Environmental impacts on marine habitats and fish species
Submission
4.1.53 Cllr. Cooney, in the conclusion of her submission, stressed the need to address a range of environmental impacts as they relate to marine habitats and protected fish species arising from dredging and dredge spoil disposal, and noise generated as a result of piling.
Response
4.1.54 Each of the impacts referred to in the document have been addressed in detail in the EIAR section on benthic biodiversity and fisheries (7.3.4.1 - 7.3.4.4) and has been mitigated firstly by avoidance e.g. by using dredging and piling windows, and secondly by reduction e.g. prevention of overspill during dredging to reduce the amount of suspended solids in the dredger plume and limiting the number of impact piling rigs for large tubular piles to be used along the riverside to just one at a time. Moreover, in consultation with DCC, IFI and NPWS, Dublin Port has agreed undertake marine habitat enhancement measures in consultation with these bodies.
4.1.55 The impact of pile driving noise on migratory fish species has been dealt with in detail in Section 7.3.4.4 of the EIAR, which points out that piling will not occur in the period March to May which will thereby avoid the bulk of salmon smolt outward migration, part of the glass eel inward migration and the spring inward migration of river lamprey.
4.1.56 Furthermore, the fact that piling will not be a continuous activity, will incorporate breaks in piling noise during the working day, complete cessation of piling at night and on Sundays will favour all migratory species but especially lamprey which often migrate at night. Crucially however, the fact that the high impact zone around an active pile will only extent to 12m from the pile in a channel that varies in width from 200-400m
Page 20 of 24
means that the vast bulk of migratory fish will be able to pass without suffering adverse impacts.
4.1.57 It is important to note that, while Councillor Cooney mentions shad and smelt in her submission, there are no confirmed reports of smelt ever occurring and no recent reports of shad (i.e. within the last 20 years) in the River Liffey.
Issue #15: Noise Pollution from unloading of containers
Submission
4.1.58 Mr Farrell submits that according to the application ships are 240 metres in length, that is 787 feet long, these are monsters, and that noise pollution from the 1000s of containers carried being unloaded has not been addressed.
Response
4.1.59 The assessment of operational phase noise from the proposed redevelopment is contained in Section 11.1.4.2 of the EIAR. While the alterations to the proposed Port facilities associated with the MP2 project will enable larger vessels to use the Port, this does not equate to significantly greater noise levels within the Port. Noise from vessels moving into and out of the Port is very sporadic and short-term and is minor in the context of the constant plant/equipment noise emanating from within the Port. Also, there is no direct correlation between the size of ship and the noise produced by such a ship.
4.1.60 When a larger vessel is docked, the engine will be turned off and hence the ship itself will not be producing any significant noise. The unloading activities of a larger ship will produce noise, however, the same unloading plant infrastructure that exists at the Port will be unloading these larger vessels at levels similar to the existing activities at the Port. Therefore, noise from unloading these vessels will be similar to that which currently takes place in terms of unloading activities at the Port. The only difference is it may take longer to unload a larger vessel as compared with a smaller ship size.
4.1.61 The proposed changes to the Port will accommodate the Port's projected growth rate of 3.3% per annum until 2040, a growth rate which may not be achievable without the proposed development in place. This will be achieved largely by more efficient use of the Port land brought about by the MP2 project and more efficient use of the existing plant/equipment at the Port. The change in location of various plant/equipment as a result of the proposed development will not result in any significant change to operational phase noise levels from the Port. Existing night-time activities in the Port will not be increased as a result of the proposed development.
4.1.62 The portions of the Port associated with the MP2 project are a considerable distance from the nearest noise sensitive properties in Clontarf and to the south and west of the Port. There is and will remain to be substantial distance noise attenuation from activities in this area of the Port prior to arriving at the nearest noise sensitive properties. Current noise levels from this part of the Port are significantly below existing background noise levels (i.e. LA90) at all of the nearest noise sensitive properties. This will remain the case when the MP2 project has been built.
4.1.63 Dublin Port maintains a Noise Management Plan in relation to the ongoing management of noise issues associated with changes to Port activities. This plan
Page 21 of 24
enables the Port to monitor noise from the Port at all times and to undertake corrective actions whenever any noise issues arise.
Issue #16: Timing of Works
Submission
4.1.64 Birdwatch Ireland submits that it is imperative that one or more ecological Clerk of Works is onsite monitoring activities and that monitoring reports are circulated. Sometimes despite the best intentions of mitigation measures on paper, differences arise in implementation on the ground.
Response
4.1.65 DPC seeks to achieve the highest possible standards of environmental management during both the construction and operation of the proposed port infrastructure redevelopment. DPC is committed to appointing a full time Facilities Manager (Environmental Clerk of Works) to ensure all mitigation measures and monitoring requirements set out in the EIAR and NIS are fully implemented as set out in the Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); submitted as an integral part of the MP2 Project planning application.
4.1.66 The MP2 Project will benefit from the exemplary environmental management systems and procedures already in operation to oversee the construction phase of the ABR Project. The environmental management of the ABR Project over the last three years ably demonstrates DPC’s ability to put into practice its environmental commitments as set out in the planning conditions including all mitigation measures and monitoring requirements set out in the EIAR and NIS.
4.1.67 DPC confirms that it is happy to provide a copy of its ecological monitoring contained in its annual environmental report to Birdwatch Ireland.
Issue #17: Monitoring of Black Guillemots
Submission
4.1.68 BirdWatch Ireland submit that very little information is available on Guillemot nesting within the port and appropriate monitoring is required to determine productivity at the site.
Response
4.1.69 Table 7-20 of the EIAR provides a comprehensive account of the annual changes in populations of Black Guillemots within the port from 2013 to 2019. This is based on survey methods which are standard practice for seabird monitoring as used by BirdWatch Ireland themselves. Any 'monitoring of productivity' requires counting eggs and juveniles in the nests and estimating fledging rates. Given that the majority of the birds nest in inaccessible drainage pipes and other crevices within port infrastructure it is not feasible or desirable to disturb birds in this way during the nesting period.
4.1.70 In relation to the request for controls to be put in place (a) in advance of demolition to prevent disturbance or injury to Guillemots and (b) during transitional phases between works to prevent nest box access being blocked until after the breeding season, DPC would accept a condition in this regard.
Page 22 of 24
Issue #18: Flora and Fauna of Dublin Bay
Submission
4.1.71 Clontarf Residents Association requests that all work must be undertaken in an environmentally sensitive way that seeks to protect and enhance the flora and fauna of Dublin Bay for future generations.
Response
4.1.72 Chapter 7 of the EIAR identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the MP2 Project on terrestrial ecology, benthic and fisheries ecology, marine mammal ecology and avian ecology resources.
4.1.73 Chapter 7 proposes all necessary mitigation measures and monitoring requirements to ensure that no significant residual environmental effects on the biodiversity resources assessed remain after construction of the MP2 Project and throughout its operation.
4.1.74 All mitigation measures and monitoring requirements set out in the EIAR are also set out in the Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP); submitted as an integral part of the MP2 Project planning application to ensure the protection of flora and fauna of Dublin Bay for future generations.
Page 23 of 24
5 Conclusion
5.1.1 Chapter 7 of the EIAR identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the MP2 Project on terrestrial, marine and avian biodiversity features. Chapter 9 of the EIAR identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the MP2 Project on water quality. Chapter 11 of the EIAR identifies, describes and assesses the likely significant environmental effects of the MP2 Project on terrestrial noise and vibration, and underwater noise.
5.1.2 With the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring measures proposed where necessary and as set out in the draft CEMP, significant residual environmental effects will not occur as a result of the construction or operation of the MP2 Project.
5.1.3 The mitigation recommendations proposed by Dublin City Council and other prescribed bodies, where not already proposed by the applicant in the documentation submitted to the Board, are accepted. Dublin Port Company will monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the draft CEMP submitted with the application for permission, and will include any additional requirements pursuant to conditions attached to statutory consents.
5.1.4 Having considered the submissions made by Dublin City Council, Inland Fisheries Ireland, Birdwatch Ireland, Councillor Cooney, Clontarf Residents Association, Hollybrook Grove Housing Association and Mr Farrell, the conclusions presented in chapters 7, 9 and 11 of the EIAR remain unchanged, and there will be no significant residual environmental effects on biodiversity or water resources or as a result of noise at construction and operational phases of MP2 Project.
Page 24 of 24
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT IN RELATION TO
HABITATS DIRECTIVE APPRAISALS RICHARD NAIRN
16 DECEMBER 2019
Page 1 of 21
1 Qualifications and Experience
Richard Nairn 1.1.1 I hold an honours degree in Natural Sciences from Trinity College Dublin and a Masters degree in Zoology from University College Cork. I am a Chartered Environmentalist and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, and a former director of IWC-BirdWatch Ireland. I have been a professional ornithologist since 1980 and I have comprehensive knowledge of waterbird ecology and survey methodology. I have published the results of my research on birds in peer- reviewed journals. I am also the author of two relevant books entitled Bird Habitats in Ireland (2012) and Dublin Bay: Nature and History (2017). I have 30 in environmental consultancy and I have prepared ecological impact assessments for over 250 projects including roads, pipelines, port developments, sewage treatment works and industrial developments. I was expert witness for the Oral Hearing into Dublin Port Company application for the ABR Project. I was also the lead ecologist in relation to the proposed extension of Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant.
James McCrory 1.1.2 James McCrory is a Senior Associate in RPS. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Plant Science from the University of Dublin, Trinity College and a Master of Science degree with Distinction in Habitat Creation and Management from Staffordshire University. He is a Chartered Ecologist and Chartered Environmentalist with the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management; and a Chartered Biologist with the Royal Society of Biology. He has over managing ecological survey and assessment contracts as part of EIA Directive and Habitats Directive appraisal processes. He has undertaken ecological surveys and assessment and prepared biodiversity chapters of EIARs for a range of projects involving dredging and discharges to the marine environment including a number of significant coastal development projects in Dublin Port and Dublin Bay, Cork Harbour, Belfast Lough, Carlingford Lough and in the Shannon Estuary.
Gerard Morgan 1.1.3 Gerard Morgan holds an honours BSc and MSc degree in Zoology from University College Cork. He is a specialist in anthropogenic impacts in freshwater, estuarine and near-shore aquatic habitats. He has over 25 years consultancy and he has prepared ecological impact assessments for a wide range of infrastructural and land-use projects including several port developments, among them the ABR Project. He has also undertaken along with colleagues all of the benthic and fisheries monitoring surveys conditioned in the ABR grant of permission since 2016.
Dr Simon Berrow 1.1.4 Dr Simon Berrow holds an honours degree in Applied Biology from Liverpool Polytechnic and a PhD in Zoology from NUI, University College, Cork. He is a part- time lecturer at the Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology contributing to the Applied Freshwater and Marine Biology degree and Masters programmes and currently supervises four PhD students. He is a founder member and current CEO of the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group and has been working on whales and dolphins in Ireland since 1989. He has published the results of his research on marine mammals in peer- reviewed journals, with over 100 publications to date. He has been involved in environmental consultancy and assessment since 1991 and he has prepared
Page 2 of 21
ecological impact assessments for a range of marine projects from offshore windfarms to cable laying, and SAC site designation to monitoring. He has managed four dedicated harbour porpoise surveys of the Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC on behalf of NPWS.
Grace Glasgow 1.1.5 Grace Glasgow holds a Master of Engineering Degree (with Distinction) in Civil E Q U B . S W Environmental Manager, a chartered Scientist and a chartered Engineer. She is also a Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, a Fellow of Engineers Ireland and a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers. She is a RPS W E since 1991. Over the 28 environmental impact assessments for several significant marine and terrestrial infrastructure projects (including marine outfalls, pipelines, ports and industrial development). In addition she has gained extensive experience in water quality assessment including the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in an Irish context, contributing to several EPA and Departmental publications supporting River Basin Management Planning.
Stephen Cleary 1.1.6 Stephen Cleary holds an honours degree in Natural Sciences from Trinity College Dublin, a Masters Degree in Applied Environmental Sciences from Queens University Belfast and a Postgraduate Diploma in Acoustics and Noise Control from the Institute of Acoustics. He is also a Member of the Institute of Acoustics (MIOA), a Member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (MIEMA) and a Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv). He has over 20 years environmental consultancy and approximate 15 Environmental Noise/Acoustics. He has completed detailed noise assessments for a broad range of proposal types including road schemes, wind farms, mixed use masterplans, mining/quarry operations, housing developments, renewables projects, waste projects, industrial development, commercial enterprises, ports, electricity infrastructure, and leisure facilities. In the area of ports, he has worked on many port related projects throughout Ireland including Ringaskiddy Port, Shannon Foynes Port, Belfast Harbour, Greenore Port and Galway Port. He has considerable experience of all stages of the planning and licensing processes and has acted as an expert witness on many occasions for planning and statutory nuisance related cases.
Eugene McKeown 1.1.7 Eugene McKeown holds a degree (B.E.) in Mechanical Engineering from University College Dublin (1980), a degree in Law (LLB) from the National University of Ireland, Galway (1997) and a Master of Science Degree (M.Sc.) in Applied Acoustics, from the University of Derby (2005). He is a Senior Associate with RPS and he has over thirty- five years engineering experience specialising in noise and vibration. He has been involved in over 200 Environmental Noise Studies, which have included carrying out underwater noise measurements and modelling underwater noise in Dublin Bay for the ABR Project and the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant marine outfall projects and also the EPA STRIVE project on Ocean Noise.
Page 3 of 21
Paul Chadwick
1.1.8 Paul Chadwick is a Technical Director with the RPS. He holds an honours degree in Natural Sci (C ) T C D M D research in the field of Atmospheric Chemistry from the Dublin Institute of Technology. H 20 I been involved in assessing major projects in the transport, waste management, commercial and energy sectors. He has experience in monitoring ambient air, modelling emissions and preparing environmental impact assessment in relation to port projects including the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project at Dublin Port and the Port Capacity Extension at the Port of Foynes. He has been engaged as an air quality expert in assessing a wide range of projects at Dublin Port since 2013.
Adrian Bell
1.1.9 Adrian Bell holds a 1st Class Honours BSc in civil engineering from the University of Glasgow. He is a Fellow of The Irish Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of Engineers I 40 and marine environmental modelling, having undertaken more than 60 coastal process studies for projects in the UK, Ireland and overseas, many of which involve the appraisal of the potential environmental impacts of harbour developments and dredging. He undertook the hydraulic modelling and hydraulic design of the marine works for the Dublin Port ABR Project including assessment of the impact of this project on the coastal processes within Dublin Harbour and Dublin Bay. He has been involved in extensive wave modelling studies on east coast of Ireland and in Dublin Bay including the Irish Wave and Water level Study for the OPW, wave simulations for developments around Dun Laoghaire and ship wash wave studies in Dublin Bay for Dublin Port Company.
2 Involvement in the Project
2.1.1 Mr McCrory has advised Dublin Port Company on ecological issues since the pre- planning phase of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment [ABR] project in 2013 and he has continued to advise DPC throughout the preparation of their Masterplan 2040 review and since the inception of the MP2 Project in 2017.
2.1.2 His involvement culminated in the preparation of the Habitats Directive appraisals contained in the Natura Impact Statement (NIS) which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 11 July 2019. These appraisals
Page 4 of 21
comprised a stage one screening appraisal for appropriate assessment and a stage two appraisal for appropriate assessment.
2.1.3 The NIS was drafted by Mr McCrory, with the benefit of inputs from a number of specialists, as below
I assisted Mr McCrory by providing input, evaluation and analysis in relation to S C I ( SCI ) SPA Mr Bell provided predictions on sediment plume concentrations and extent and on sediment deposition. These outputs were in turn used by o Ms Glasgow in providing input evaluation and analysis to Mr McCrory, in relation to potential water quality effects on European sites; and o Mr Morgan in providing input evaluation and analysis to Mr McCrory, in relation to potential habitat deterioration effects on Qualifying I ( QI ) SAC SPA ; and prey items of species of SACs and SCI species of SPAs. Mr Chadwick provided input evaluation and analysis to Mr McCrory in relation to particulate deposition and air quality, and potential habitat deterioration Q I ( QI ) SAC SPAs Mr McKeown provided predictions on underwater noise levels which were in turn used by Mr McCrory and Dr Berrow in providing input evaluation and analysis to Mr McCrory, in relation to potential disturbance effects on marine mammal QIs of SACs Mr Cleary provided predictions on aerial noise levels which were in turn used by me in providing input evaluation and analysis to Mr McCrory in relation to potential disturbance effects on SCIs of SPAs 2.1.4 In that sense, the Habitats Directive appraisals are a collaborative effort as multiple specialist scientific skill sets were required to fully assess the potential and likely significant effects of the proposed development.
2.1.5 For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that this statement of evidence addresses the issued raised in submissions and observations in connection with the likely significant effects of MP2 Project in the context of the Screening for Appropriate Assessment and the Appropriate Assessment to be carried out by An Bord Pleanála in respect of the MP2 Project.
3 Conclusions of the Habitats Directive Appraisals
3.1.1 The submitted NIS comprises both a stage one screening appraisal and a stage two appraisal of the implications of the MP2 Project on European sites in view of their conservation objectives.
Stage One Screening Appraisal
3.1.2 Having regard to the relevant legislation and the methodology followed, a Stage One Screening appraisal was undertaken as to whether or not the proposed MP2 Project
Page 5 of 21
is likely to have a significant effect on the following European sites comprising 7 no. SACs, 3 no. cSACs and 9 no. SPAs:
Lambay Island SAC Rogerstown Estuary SAC Malahide Estuary SAC North Dublin Bay SAC South Dublin Bay SAC Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC Codling Fault Zone SAC I E SAC Baldoyle Bay cSAC Howth Head cSAC Lambay Island SPA Rogerstown Estuary SPA Malahide Estuary SPA I E SPA Baldoyle Bay SPA Howth Head Coast SPA North Bull Island SPA South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA Dalkey Islands SPA
3.1.3 In this context, it should be noted that candidate or proposed European sites (e.g., cSACs) are afforded precisely the same level of protection as designated European sites.
3.1.4 Following the stage one screening appraisal, it was concluded that certain likely significant effects could not be excluded at screening stage for the following European sites, in the absence of further evaluation and analysis, or the application of measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the proposed development on the sites concerned
3.1.5 Potential Underwater Noise and Disturbance effects on:
the Grey seal population of Lambay Island SAC the Harbour seal population of Lambay Island SAC the Harbour porpoise community of Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC
3.1.6 Potential Water Quality and Habitat Deterioration effects on:
Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide in North Dublin Bay SAC Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide in South Dublin Bay SAC Reefs in Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC the intertidal wetland areas of the Tolka Estuary as a resource for the regularly occurring migratory waterbirds of - o South Dublin Bay & River Tolka Estuary SPA o North Bull Island SPA
Page 6 of 21
the prey biomass available for the breeding waterbird Special Conservation Interest species of South Dublin Bay & River Tolka Estuary SPA
3.1.7 Potential Aerial Noise and Visual Disturbance effects on:
the breeding waterbird Special Conservation Interest species of South Dublin Bay & River Tolka Estuary SPA; the non-breeding waterbird Special Conservation Interest species Special Conservation Interest species of South Dublin Bay & River Tolka Estuary SPA; and the non-breeding waterbird Special Conservation Interest species of North Bull Island SPA.
3.1.8 Accordingly, it was concluded that a stage two appraisal was required to be undertaken.
Stage Two Appraisal
3.1.9 The consequent Stage Two appraisal of the implications of the proposed MP2 Project on European sites in view of their conservation objectives was undertaken so as to enable the competent authorities to determine whether or not the proposed development would adversely affect the integrity of any European site.
3.1.10 Having further considered, evaluated and analysed the conservation objectives of the relevant European sites, which are set out in Sections 5.1 to 5.6 of the NIS, as part of the Stage Two appraisal, mitigation measures or measures intended to avoid or reduce the potentially harmful effects of the proposed development on the sites concerned were applied to the construction and, where relevant, the operation phases of the proposed development.
3.1.11 These measures are set out in Sections 5.7.1 to 5.7.3 of the NIS. Section 5.7.4 of the NIS provides evidence of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed, describes how they will be implemented and how their implementation will be monitored.
3.1.12 Having taken these mitigation measures into account as part of the Stage Two appraisal, the NIS concluded that there will be no adverse effects upon the integrity of any European site and that no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.
4 Submissions and Responses
4.1.1 In preparing this witness statement, careful consideration has been given by the relevant expert to each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the Habitats Directive appraisals of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on European sites and their responses are provided below.
Page 7 of 21
Issue #1: In-combination effects with the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan
Submission
4.1.2 Dublin City Council Parks and Landscape Services Division ( DCC ) requests under C I G D A C N P should be considered with regard to potential impacts on protected species and habitats. DCC submits that
The A lica ha e ie ed he cumulative impacts of several project concerning the relevant Natura 2000 sites. However, the impacts of the various sub-projects under the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan (NTA) should also be considered with regard to potential impacts on protected species and habitats. Public consultation documents have been published by Dublin City Council and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council of draft plans and the routes have been delineated for the East Coast Trail Cycle Route. The impacts of these plans should be noted in this section, particularly their potential di ba ce i e mig a bi d .
Response
4.1.3 DCC submits N I S , reviewed by Parks and Landscape Services, the Planning Authority concur with the conclusions reached and have no reason to deviate from the results of the . This response is noted by DPC.
4.1.4 T G D A C N P ( P ) G promulgated by the National Transport Authority to deliver strategic objectives of the National Cycle Policy Framework (NCPF). The Plan has been subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment and appropriate assessment. The cycle routes which form the Plan are best illustrated in overview in Document 4A of the Plan documents NTA 1. An excerpt from this document is reproduced as Appendix 2 to this witness statement. It comprises two maps; firstly Map CN2 showing the Dublin Metropolitan Area Cycle Network which includes and secondly Map DGN showing the Dublin Greenway Network which includes the N5 East Coast Trail routes north and south of Dublin City.
4.1.5 Plan level appropriate assessment identified that the East Coast Trail (N5) had the potential to significantly affect a number of European sites through direct or indirect habitat loss or increased disturbance from visitor pressure. SEA and plan level appropriate assessment has resulted in a number of mitigation measures being adopted as part of the Plan, or recommended for project level design of greenway development. Examples include
To protect the Annex I habitats of North Dublin Bay cSAC, sections of the N5 East Coast Trail that pass along the edge of this European site may be locally re-routed and will ensure that ancillary aspects of the greenway such as street furniture, cycle and car parking facilities or street lighting do not impact on the qualifying interests of the site.
1 https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Overall_Network11.pdf
Page 8 of 21
To protect the overwintering special conservation interest populations of North Bull Island SPA and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA, the provision of cycle facilities closest to the parts of the sites most susceptible to disturbance may be restricted and locally re-routed away from wetland habitats and feature species. Operational phase bird monitoring is also proposed. Additional measures proposed for project level design of cycleway sections passing South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA include signage denoting the presence of Natura 2000 sites; and seasonal restrictions on construction to ensure it occurs at a time of year that will not have an adverse impact on the relevant bird populations.
4.1.6 Potentially significant disturbance effects on the feature species of North Bull Island SPA and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA as a result of operation of Berth 53 in combination with the operation of the Greenway along the northern boundary of the Port Estate were identified in the Habitats Directive appraisals (at Section 4.4.4 on p156 of the NIS). The Greenway forms part of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan.
4.1.7 Mitigation is proposed in Section 5.7.3 (on p275) of the NIS and Table 2-1 (on p4) of the draft Construction Environmental Management Plan to prevent an adverse effect on the integrity of North Bull Island SPA and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. These measures are listed below for ease of reference:
Construction of Berth 53 and heritage installations will temporarily cease during periods of greatest low spring tides to avoid disturbance at exposed feeding grounds within the Tolka Estuary. Gates will be used at the site of the Greenway to control the movement of people during periods of greatest low spring tides, again, to avoid disturbance at feeding grounds within the Tolka Estuary.
4.1.8 This is the only location in which it is considered that cumulative effects of any significance can occur between elements of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan and elements of the proposed MP2 Project, which is dealt with at Section 4.4.4 at p156 of the NIS. Following the implementation of mitigation to prevent disturbance, construction and operation of the MP2 Project will not adversely affect the integrity of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (see Section 5.5.1.5 at p260 of the NIS) or North Bull Island SPA (see Section 5.6.1.3 at p269 of the NIS) as regards their conservation objectives and no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.
4.1.9 The - appraisal was undertaken in accordance with the latest European Commission guidance on managing Natura 2000 sites (the November 2018 Notice C/2018/76212). This guidance as regards other proposed plans or projects, on grounds of legal certainty it would seem appropriate to restrict the in-combination provision to those which have been actually proposed, i.e. for which an application for approval or consent has been introduced .
4.1.10 A section of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network was consented in 2017 as part of the Dollymount Promenade & Flood Protection scheme. Another section was
2 Managing Natura 2000 sites The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (C/2018/7621), OJEU C 33, 25.1.2019, p. 1 62; available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019XC0125(07)&from=EN
Page 9 of 21
consented in 2017 as part of the Dublin Port Internal Road Network, this being the Greenway permission (Reg. Ref. 3084/16). No other sections of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network or East Coast Trail Cycle Route have been submitted to a competent authority as an application for development consent in an area that could potentially be susceptible to in combination effects with MP2 Project.
Issue #2: Mitigation measures for marine mammals
Submission
4.1.11 DCC recommends that remedial and mitigation measures for visual scanning should be set at sea state 2 for harbour porpoise and sea state 3 for common [harbour] and grey seals.
Response
4.1.12 DCC N I S , reviewed by Parks and Landscape Services, the Planning Authority concur with the conclusions reached and have no reason to deviate from the results of the . Again, this conclusion is noted by DPC.
4.1.13 Harbour porpoise is a qualifying interest of Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC and harbour and grey seals are qualifying interests of Lambay Island SAC.
4.1.14 In Sections 5.7.2 of the NIS, the applicant has proposed a Marine Mammal Management Plan adopting the NPWS (2014) Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters. Section 4.2 of the Guidelines states that effective visual monitoring can be undertaken by Marine M O ( MMOs ) in sea conditions of sea state 4 or less, and that efficacy in the visual detection of marine mammal species improves considerably below sea state 3.
4.1.15 The Guidelines also recommend that dredging will only commence in daylight hours where effective visual monitoring as performed and determined by the MMO has been achieved. If effective visual monitoring is not possible, the Guidelines state that the sound-producing activities shall be postponed until effective visual monitoring is possible. Thus, the MMO has the power to advise on whether effective mitigation is achieving the objectives of minimising impacts and has the authority to advise that operations should be postponed.
4.1.16 The mitigation and monitoring measures proposed for marine mammals are those applied by all stakeholders in the marine sector in Irish waters and they are appropriate in this instance.
4.1.17 Following the implementation of this mitigation, dredging and disposal at sea activities proposed as part of the MP2 Project will not adversely affect the integrity of the harbour porpoise community in Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC or the harbour seal or grey seal populations in Lambay Island SAC, and no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.
Page 10 of 21
Issue #3: Closure of the Greenway
Submission
4.1.18 DCC state that the proposal to close the gates at the Greenway during tern feeding periods is acceptable to the planning authority for biodiversity reasons but that the timing of, and reasons for, the gate closure need to be clearly communicated to the public by DPC.
Response
4.1.19 The Greenway gate mitigation is listed in Section 5.7.3 of the NIS and within the Bird M P CEMP. I Gates will be used at the site of the Greenway to control the movement of people during periods of greatest low spring tides, again, to avoid disturbance at feeding grounds within the Tolka Estuary . T measure is proposed for operational phase of MP2 Project. A restriction on access is not proposed during that part of the year when terns breed in the Port. It is proposed during the overwintering season, and only during periods of greatest low spring tides. The timing of, and reasons for, the gate closure will be clearly communicated to the public by DPC. As outlined on p155 of the NIS, this occurs on approximately 40 occasions per year. Closure will therefore occur on approximately 24 occasions throughout each overwintering period (September to March). Note that most of these events will be during hours of darkness.
Submission
4.1.20 BirdWatch Ireland requests that a schedule of extreme low tides be provided to it by the project developers relating to these works when they are being planned and to be alerted when works will cease and recommence at this site due to low tides.
Response
4.1.21 DPC does not have an objection to such a condition, should the Board consider that such a condition is appropriate.
Issue #4: Cumulative effects of dredging and disposal of dredged material
Submission
4.1.22 Councillor Cooney notes on p4 of her submission, a reference to p337 of the NIS and submits that
The ce f d edgi g a idabl ca e di ba ce f edime he channel bed and dispersal of some material in the water column. Disposal of dredge spoil at the licenced dumping site in Dublin Bay also results in sediment release. These losses may have potential impacts on marine life and water quality in the form of a suspended sediment plume within the water column. The accumulated effects of the Alexendra Basin Redevelopment and this proposal give little time for recovering. Though the activity is ceased during March to May to lessen harm on fish life, with our wild salmon numbers at only five out of hundred e i g f m ea a ega i e effec e i g Salm m be add e ed.
Page 11 of 21
Response
4.1.23 The first part of Councillor Coon is taken from the second paragraph 12 A 4 C P A NIS. T reads in full as follows -
The process of dredging unavoidably causes disturbance of sediment on the channel bed and dispersal of some material in the water column. Disposal of dredge spoil at the licenced dumping site in Dublin Bay also results in sediment release. These losses may have potential impacts on marine life and water quality in the form of a suspended sediment plume within the water column. The potential impacts arising from these factors has therefore been assessed in the report.
4.1.24 T C C .
4.1.25 T C C A n, however, the Habitats Directive appraisals correctly concern only those qualifying features of European sites where a pathway of potential effect can be established. The closest European site to the MP2 Project which is designated for Atlantic salmon is the River Boyne and River Blackwater SAC (IE002299). That site is 50km north of Dublin Port by sea.
4.1.26 Figure 5.8 of the NIS shows the maximum Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration envelope using a Trailer Suction Dredger dumping circa 2,030 tonnes wet weight at 3 hour intervals on average within each winter capital dredging season. This is the maximum concentration during disposal at sea. The figure clearly illustrates that elevated levels of TSS during disposal operations do not extend to the lower Liffey, less still the Boyne Estuary. A 216 NIS, the sediment plume outside the area of the dump site is less than 200mg/l and does not extend further than 750m to the north or south of the dump site . Accordingly, there is no potential the proposed MP2 development to have any impact on the conservation objectives, including Atlantic salmon, of the Boyne and River Blackwater SAC.
4.1.27 Figures 5.10 to 5.24 of the NIS show suspended sediment concentration plumes at the various dredging locations in the Port area across a range of tidal states and deposition of sediments as a result of dredging in those areas.
Submission
4.1.28 C C The accumulated effects of the Alexendra Basin Redevelopment and this proposal give little time for recovering .
Response
4.1.29 Section 4.4.1 of the NIS (at p149) comprehensively considers the potential for in- combination effects between elements of the MP2 Project and the ABR Project. In relation to dredging and disposal of material at sea, the NIS notes that these activities for MP2 Project are proposed to occur sequentially after those in respect of the ABR Project, and not concurrently. ABR dredging and disposal is scheduled to occur for six consecutive winter seasons (2016-2021). MP2 Project dredging and disposal is then scheduled to occur in four winter season campaigns in the period between 2024- 2031. This amounts to dredging and disposal in ten winters out of fifteen as a result of both projects.
Page 12 of 21
4.1.30 As noted on p153 of the NIS, the temporal duration of the effects of dredging and disposal effect is increased when MP2 and ABR projects are considered in- combination. The magnitude of effect, however, remains the same for each dredging event or campaign . When the mitigation measures contained in the ABR Dredging Management Plan are taken into consideration, there is no likely significant effect on any of the qualifying interest marine habitats or species of the sites listed in paragraph 3.1.3 above, or their conservation objectives.
4.1.31 As stated on p224 of the NIS, the estimated natural sediment load from the upstream Liffey catchment is estimated at about 200,000 tonnes per annum. If dispersed over the Port area between East Link and Poolbeg Light and the Tolka Estuary, the coastal processes assessment at Appendix 4 to the NIS estimates this quantum to be equivalent to a natural sediment load of 30 kg/m2 in any year.
4.1.32 The temporary elevated levels of suspended sediments in the berths and during channel dredging works predicted as a result of dredging activities, or at the Burford Bank as a result of disposal at sea activities does not present any risk to maintaining or restoring the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitats and/or the Annex II species of the European sites considered in the Habitats Directive appraisals.
4.1.33 The possibility of significant in-combination effects of dredging and disposal at sea for the MP2 Project and the ABR Project can be excluded beyond scientific doubt.
Submission
4.1.34 Councillor Cooney and Peadar Farrell highlighted concern about the absence of a requirement to halt dredging or dumping at night or if visibility deteriorate, this makes it impossible to see porpoise in the water, and that marine mammals would be below the dredgers.
Response
4.1.35 Night-time dredging and disposal is consistent with NPWS (2014) Guidelines, which does not require a halt in activity once full power is achieved, unless there is a break in activity of greater than 30 minutes. The logic is that if a marine mammal enters a Mitigation Zone once full noise output is reached, the animal has chosen to enter the zone. Restricting dredging and disposal to day-light and good visibility would prolong the dredging activity without reducing cumulative exposure. Winter capital dredging campaigns are not continuous but carried out in short periods to ensure turbidity levels are kept low and short-term recovery of the spoil grounds between disposal periods.
4.1.36 The potential for cumulative underwater noise effects of MP2 Project with ABR Project and other projects was considered in Section 4.4 at p153 of the NIS, which concludes that the possibility of significant adverse impacts either cumulatively or in combination with the ABR project can be excluded beyond scientific doubt.
4.1.37 Long term acoustic monitoring has shown no displacement of harbour porpoise from the spoil grounds or control since monitoring started in 2016, suggesting the current mitigation plan is effective. Disposal during MP2 will not occur during the summer months, which coincides with porpoise and common seal breeding seasons.
4.1.38 Harbour porpoise are known to avoid ships, thus, it is extremely unlikely that they would remain below the dredger on release of its spoil. Spoil disposal is likely to induce a short duration (of minutes) of evasive reaction, with porpoises avoiding the
Page 13 of 21
immediate area. Static Acoustic Monitoring of porpoises at the disposal site showed occupancy rates were consistent, before, during and after disposal. Click detections were elevated during disposal with increased foraging behaviour recorded, suggesting disposal may provide additional foraging opportunities.
4.1.39 The mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.7.2 of the NIS are consistent with NPWS (2014) Guidelines to manage disturbance to marine mammals.
4.1.40 Dr Berrow has reviewed the presence of marine mammals in Dublin Bay and approaches, including new data collected during the Dublin Port ABR Project. This has shown common and grey seals frequently occur within Dublin Harbour and will be potentially exposed to piling and dredging and disposal activity while harbour porpoise occur only in Dublin Bay and will be potentially exposed to dredging and disposal activity. The proposed mitigation will reduce any effects, if they occur at all, to insignificant at the level of the individual with no effect whatsoever at a population level.
4.1.41 The proposed monitoring of Dublin Bay as part of the MP2 Project will enhance knowledge of the use of Dublin Bay by marine mammals and ensure its continued protection.
Issue #5: Use of outdated baseline air quality
Submission
4.1.42 Councillor Cooney states that the data presented on page 287 of the NIS in relation to ambient air quality is outdated.
Response
4.1.43 The evidence of Mr Chadwick deals with this issue and presents cogent reasoning as to why the NIS is not deficient in this regard.
Issue #6: Disturbance to SCI species of birds
Submission
4.1.44 In relation to dredging works to deepen the channel for safe navigation and turning of vessels, BirdWatch Ireland submits that it is not able to discount the possibility that disturbance from operational activities to various Species of Conservation Interest (including Gulls, Sanderling, Black-tailed Godwits, Redshank and others) would not be an issue in the area at the very base of the Great South Wall in the Liffey channel where there is a cooling water outfall.
Response
4.1.45 Mr. Nairn has considered this submission and it appears that the principal point being made suggests that the presence of vessels in proximity to this area, which is used by various SPA Special Conservation Interest species at the base of the Great South Wall, could cause disturbance; whether those vessels are dredging, transiting, manoeuvring or turning in the course of dredging at construction phase; or transiting, manoeuvring or turning in the course of shipping movements at operational phase.
4.1.46 Birdwatch Ireland submits that they are concerned that ex-situ factors such as these activities near the outfall could pose challenges to meeting Objective 1 for the
Page 14 of 21
overwintering Special Conservation Interest species of South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA
4.1.47 The stage one and stage two Habitats Directive appraisals submitted with the application for development consent for MP2 Project contain analysis and evaluation based, in part, on the conservation objectives set for South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (version 1) published by NPWS in March 2015 and an associated conservation objectives supporting document (version 1) published by NPWS in October 2014.
4.1.48 These documents are referenced within the NIS and formed the basis of the appraisals (e.g. the 2015 conservation objectives are referenced at p100 and the 2014 supporting document at p120).
4.1.49 In relation to overwintering Special Conservation Interest species, Objective 1 seeks to maintain the favourable conservation condition of these non-breeding waterbird Special Conservation Interest species in South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (and North Bull Island SPA).
4.1.50 The supporting document advises (at p11) that, in order for the conservation condition to be viewed as favourable:
the long term population trend for each waterbird Special Conservation Interest species should be stable or increasing, and conversely the population is deemed to be unfavourable when it has declined by 25% or more, as assessed by the most recent population trend analysis; and there should be no significant decrease in the range, timing or intensity of use of areas by the waterbird species of Special Conservation Interest, other than that occurring from natural patterns of variation.
4.1.51 The supporting document also advises that the conservation objectives should be read and interpreted in the context of information and advice provided in additional sections of the supporting document report, and notes that factors that can adversely affect the achievement of Objective 1 include habitat modification, disturbance, and ex-situ factors. Ex-situ factors are explained on p12 of the supporting document in the following terms -
"several of the listed waterbird species may at times use habitats situated within the immediate hinterland of the SPA or in areas ecologically connected to it. The reliance on these habitats will vary from species to species and from site to site. Significant habitat change or increased levels of disturbance within these areas could result in the displacement of one or more of the listed waterbird species from areas within the SPA, and/or a reduction in their numbers (for further information on this topic please refer to Section 5.2)."
4.1.52 The area highlighted as an area of concern by BirdWatch Ireland and containing significant numbers of Black-headed Gull (and smaller numbers of Sanderling, Black- tailed Godwits, Redshank and other species) is outside of the SPA network and as such, Section 5.2 of the supporting document is instructive in that regard. The highlighted area is not a coded Dublin Bay IWeBS count sub-site but is included in the survey areas for the Dublin Bay Birds Project and holds regular numbers of Black- headed Gulls.
Page 15 of 21
4.1.53 Section 5.2 of the supporting document describes the waterbird SCI species, their ecological characteristics, requirements and specialities in summary form. In relation to ex-situ sites connected to SPAs that waterbird SCIs use, the document advises (at p25) that "assessments that are examining factors that have the potential to affect the achievement of the site's conservation objectives should also consider the use of these 'ex-situ' habitats, and their significance to the listed bird species."
4.1.54 Table 5.2 of the supporting document describes Black-headed gull as being a very adaptable species, having the widest range of foraging guilds of any of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA SCI species (being a surface swimmer, shallow water column diver, intertidal walker and a terrestrial walker), with a wide range of food and prey requirements; being highly likely to utilise alternative habitats at certain times; and having moderate site fidelity.
4.1.55 Appendix 7 of the supporting document illustrates dot-density diagrams of waterbird SCI species distribution for foraging and roosting behaviour. Maps for Black-headed gull are presented at p106 of the supporting document. The area highlighted as an area of concern by Birdwatch Ireland has no records.
4.1.56 The Birdwatch Ireland submission notes a recent count of 593 Black-headed gulls at the area of concern highlighted, that the 2018 Dublin Bay Birds Project Technical report gull roost surveys shows that there are 17,776 Black-headed gulls using Dublin Bay, and as such the Black-headed gull numbers associated with the outfall are 3.3% of this figure which is in their view, significant.
4.1.57 The supporting document notes (at p56) that survey data suggests Dublin Bay to be a major staging area for Black-headed gulls prior to spring migration; quoting counts of 39,535 Black-headed gulls recorded in Merne et al. (2009) and 40,585 Black-headed gulls in the dusk roost survey undertaken as part of the 2011/12 Waterbird Survey Programme.
4.1.58 The submission states that "BirdWatch Ireland is not able to discount that disturbance from operational activities to these species of conservation interest (SCI) would not be an issue in this area."
4.1.59 The distance from the area highlighted as an area of concern by BirdWatch Ireland to the nearest point where shipping would turn is 172m. There are circa 48 existing shipping movements per day (24 arrivals and 24 departures, see EIAR Appendix 13.1) including throughout the overwintering season at similar distances past this location and, likewise, there are existing shipping movements at a similar or smaller distance to this from the existing SPA boundaries on the north side of the Liffey channel.
4.1.60 No negative effects of disturbance to waterbirds as a result of these existing shipping movements has been observed to date. In addition, shipping is not generally perceived to be a threat to non-breeding waterbirds and that they will quickly habituate to it. Black-headed Gulls in particular are highly habituated to human activity and will regularly forage in areas where people walk on the intertidal area or on coastal
Page 16 of 21
grassland. This species is one of the most habituated, adaptable and opportunistic SCI species of South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA.
4.1.61 The type of vessels involved in dredging are slow-moving, and would not represent any greater threat to waterbirds than other commercial shipping movements.
4.1.62 Nonetheless, to assist An Bord Pleanála in conducting an appropriate assessment an additional bird survey was undertaken at the ESB Power Station cooling water outfall adjacent to Poolbeg Tank Farm and the Great South Wall over six days between 22- 27 October 2019. Appendix 1 to this witness statement contains the recent bird survey report.
4.1.63 The purpose of these surveys was to record any disturbance events relevant to SPA Special Conservation Interest species as observed by the ornithologist before, during and after capital dredging works associated with the ABR Project being carried out under Dumping at Sea Permit S0024-01 in the navigation channel over a period of six days.
4.1.64 Twenty four hours of observations were made over the six days. Dredging occurred 200m from the area of interest at the base of the Great South Wall on four of the six survey days. In summary, 18 disturbance events out of 100 potential events resulted in behavioural change of the birds present:
Eleven events, all caused by small wakes produced by passing ships, resulted in behavioural change (e.g. vigilance or alarm call) but not flight; Five events, all caused by potentially predatory birds flying over, resulted in some of the birds present taking flight, but they soon returned to the site; and Two events, both caused by wakes produced by the Dublin Port pilot vessel passing at speed, resulted in some of the birds present taking flight and not returning.
4.1.65 No disturbance whatsoever was observed to occur as a result of the dredging activities. There is no potential for disturbance from dredging activities to cause impacts on the the SPA Special Conservation Interest species.
4.1.66 Dredging of the navigation channel in front of the cooling water outfall at the Great South Wall is not an ex-situ factor that could potentially impact upon the attainment of Objective 1 for the overwintering Special Conservation Interest species of South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA.
4.1.67 There will be no appreciable decrease in the range, timing or intensity of use of this area by any SPA Special Conservation Interest species as a result of dredging activities associated with the proposed MP2 Project. Accordingly, there will not be any adverse effect on the integrity of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA.
Page 17 of 21
Issue #7: Curlew
Submission
4.1.68 Hollybrook Grove Housing Association is concerned that some wildlife which has become extinct in parts of Ireland including for example the curlew, and which is still present and feeds in the bay area of Clontarf could be threatened by this project
Response
4.1.69 Curlew is a SCI species of North Bull Island SPA.
4.1.70 The most recent report by BirdWatch Ireland on the Dublin Bay Birds Project shows that the peak number of Curlew in Dublin Bay in 2018/19 was 1,322 birds. The overwintering population here has shown a slight increase over the period of the project since 2013. The threats to Curlew in Ireland relate primarily to the breeding population and not to the wintering birds which principally breed in other countries.
4.1.71 Following implementation of the mitigation measures set out in Section 5.6.1.3 at p269 of the NIS, construction and operation of the MP2 Project will not adversely affect the integrity of North Bull Island SPA as regards the conservation objectives set for its non- breeding waterbird SCIs and no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.
5 Conclusion
5.1.1 A Stage One Screening appraisal for appropriate assessment and a stage two appraisal for appropriate assessment was conducted.
5.1.2 A Stage One Screening appraisal was carried out to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge, if that proposed development, individually or in combination with another plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site.
5.1.3 Nineteen European sites were considered in the Stage One Screening appraisal.
5.1.4 Likely Significant Effects could not be excluded at the screening stage for six European sites.
5.1.5 A subsequent Stage Two appraisal of the implications of the proposed MP2 Project on European sites in view of their conservation objectives was undertaken to assess whether or not the MP2 Project would adversely affect the integrity of any European site. Mitigation measures were applied to the construction and where relevant, the operation of the proposed development.
5.1.6 Having taken these mitigation measures into account as part of the Stage Two appraisal, the NIS concluded that there will be no adverse effects upon the integrity of any European site and no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.
Page 18 of 21
5.1.7 In relation to the issues raised in submissions and observations relating to the Habitats Directive appraisals, issues were raised in relation to:
potential in-combination effects of MP2 Project and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan; mitigation measures for marine mammals; closure of the Greenway; dredging and disposal at sea of dredged material for both the ABR and MP2 projects; use of outdated baseline air quality; dredging and shipping movements in the navigation channel near the Great South Wall; and threats to Curlew.
5.1.8 In relation to the first issue, potentially significant disturbance effects on feature species as a result of operation of Berth 53 in combination with the operation of the Greenway along the northern boundary of the Port Estate was identified in the Habitats Directive appraisals (at Section 4.4.4 on p156 of the NIS). This Greenway forms part of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan. This is the only location in which it is considered that cumulative effects of any significance can occur between elements of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan and elements of the proposed MP2 Project. Mitigation is proposed in Section 5.7.3 (at p275) of the NIS to prevent an adverse effect on the integrity of North Bull Island SPA and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA. In-combination or cumulative effects between MP2 Project and the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network and East Coast Trail Cycle Route have been adequately considered in the Habitats Directive appraisals.
5.1.9 As regards the second issue, the applicant has proposed a Marine Mammal Management Plan adopting the NPWS (2014) Guidance to Manage the Risk to Marine Mammals from Man-made Sound Sources in Irish Waters which is the appropriate mitigation in this instance.
5.1.10 In relation to the third issue, the Greenway gates will be closed during the overwintering season, and only during periods of greatest low spring tides. They will not be closed during the breeding season. The timing of gate closures will be provided to Birdwatch Ireland and clearly communicated to the public by DPC.
5.1.11 As regards the fourth issue, the temporary elevated levels of suspended sediments in the berths and during channel dredging works predicted as a result of dredging activities, or at the Burford Bank as a result of disposal at sea activities does not present any risk to maintaining or restoring the favourable conservation condition of the Annex I habitats and/or the Annex II species of the European sites considered in the Habitats Directive appraisals. Night-time dredging and disposal is consistent with NPWS (2014) Guidelines which are to be applied to the MP2 Project.
5.1.12 In relation to the fifth issue, this is not the case and the evidence of Mr Chadwick in relation to air quality presents cogent reasoning as to why the NIS is not deficient in this regard.
5.1.13 As regard the sixth issue, having considered the results of a recent survey to record any disturbance events relating to capital dredging works associated with the ABR Project being carried out under Dumping at Sea Permit S0024-01 in the navigation channel in October 2019, there will be no appreciable decrease in the range, timing or
Page 19 of 21
intensity of use of this area by any SPA Special Conservation Interest species as a result of dredging activities associated with the proposed MP2 Project.
5.1.14 In relation to the seventh issue, following the implementation of mitigation measures there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity of North Bull Island SPA, its overwintering population of curlew or any other SCI species.
5.1.15 In all the circumstances as set out in the application documentation, incuding the NIS, and in this witness statement, the competent authority is enabled to conclude that the MP2 Project will not have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European site.
Page 20 of 21
Appendix 1 October 2019 Bird Survey Report
Page 21 of 21
ECOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR BIRDS
ESB Cooling Water Outfall, Poolbeg
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company MP2 Project Final November 2019
www.rpsgroup.com
REPORT
This report was prepared by RPS Ireland Ltd (NI) (‘RPS’) within the terms of its engagement and in direct response to a scope of services. This report is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and does not apply directly or indirectly and must not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter. In preparing the report, RPS may have relied upon information provided to it at the time by other parties. RPS accepts no responsibility as to the accuracy or completeness of information provided by those parties at the time of preparing the report. The report does not take into account any changes in information that may have occurred since the publication of the report. If the information relied upon is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that the observations and conclusions expressed in the report may have changed. RPS does not warrant the contents of this report and shall not assume any responsibility or liability for loss whatsoever to any third party caused by, related to or arising out of any use or reliance on the report howsoever. No part of this report, its attachments or appendices may be reproduced by any process without the written consent of RPS. All enquiries should be directed to RPS.
Prepared by: Prepared for:
RPS Ireland Ltd Dublin Port Company
Adam McClure Sarah Horgan Senior Ecologist Programme Management Office
Elmwood House, 74 Boucher Road Port Centre, Alexandra Road, Belfast, Co. Antrim, BT12 6RZ Dublin Port, D01 H4C6 T 028 9066 7914 T +353 (0) 1 8876861 E [email protected] E [email protected]
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page ii REPORT
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Ecological Survey for Birds ...... 1
2 METHODOLOGY ...... 2 2.1 Statement of Authority ...... 2 2.2 Consultation ...... 2 2.3 Disturbance Monitoring Survey ...... 2
3 RESULTS...... 5 3.1 Disturbance Monitoring Survey ...... 5
REFERENCES ...... 7
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page iii REPORT
1 INTRODUCTION RPS was commissioned by Dublin Port Company to undertake an Ecological Survey for Birds at the ESB Power Station cooling water outfall adjacent to Poolbeg Tank Farm and the Great South Wall, Dublin Bay. The purpose of these surveys was to record any disturbance events relevant to Special Conservation Interest species of South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA), observed by the ornithologist before, during and after dredging being carried out under Dumping at Sea Permit S0024- 01 in the navigation channel in October 2019 1.1 Ecological Survey for Birds The Ecological Survey Report has been written in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Ecological and Environmental Management (CIEEM) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (CIEEM 2017). The aim of the report is to provide a description of the bird survey methods used and to provide the results of bird surveys; to inform an interpretation of the results by the appointed MP2 Project ornithologist.
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 1 REPORT
2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Statement of Authority The ornithological surveyor and report author, Adam McClure BSc, is a Senior Ecologist with RPS with over 10 years of experience in the field of ornithology. Adam has extensive expertise and experience in conducting a wide range of ornithological surveys, including bird disturbance surveys. Adam is also a Full member of CIEEM and is currently a member of the CIEEM Irish Section Committee. The second ornithological surveyor, Nick Veale BSc MSc, is an independent ecologist with over 18 years’ experience in consulting ecology and specialising in ornithology. Nick has extensive expertise and experience in conducting a wide range of ornithological surveys, including bird disturbance surveys. The information prepared and provided is true and accurate at the time of issue of this report and has been prepared and provided in accordance with the CIEEM Code of Professional Conduct (CIEEM, 2019). We confirm that the professional judgement expressed herein is the true and bona fide opinion of our professional ecologists. 2.2 Consultation As part of the planning application determination process, An Bord Pleanála received a submission from BirdWatch Ireland dated 6th September 2019. BirdWatch Ireland raised concerns that the proposed dredging works to widen the current navigation channel could cause disturbance to an area which they identified as “a notable area for waterbirds”, including “many gulls, but also smaller numbers of Sanderling, Black-tailed Godwits, Redshank and others”. The area in question is the cooling water outfall from ESB’s Poolbeg Power Station located at the base of the Great South Wall in the Liffey Channel, where a small area of mudflat is exposed at low-tide. BirdWatch Ireland noted that they were unable to discount the possibility of disturbance from dredging activities to Special Conservation Interest (SCI) species from neighbouring SPA sites, and in particular Black-headed Gull. 2.3 Disturbance Monitoring Survey Permission has been granted under Dumping at Sea Permit S0024-01 to allow Dublin Port Company to dredge the navigation channel as part of Alexandra Basin Redevelopment A dredging campaign was programmed for late October 2019 and a decision was taken to make use of that campaign as it presented an opportunity to capture any disturbance events that might occur when the permitted dredging activity was taking place. In order to assess potential disturbance events caused by the presence of the dredging vessel, suitable vantage points overseeing the outfall and surrounding lands were established. The dredging vessel, Freeway, is a 92m hopper dredger. During monitoring the dredger slowly passed by the survey area at the inner limit of the dredging area, approximately 200m from shore, or approximately 150m from the low water mark. During operation, the dredger was passing the survey area for 10-15 minutes.
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 2 REPORT
A vantage point (VP), located on the southern bank of the Liffey, on the quayside adjacent to Poolbeg Tank Farm was chosen. Due to restrictions on access over a bank holiday weekend, a second vantage point was required. The second VP was located on reclaimed land adjacent to Terminal 5 on the northern bank of the Liffey (Figure 1.0).
Figure 1.0 Ð Showing location of vantage points and area of interest
Vantage point watches were conducted within a window, +/- 2.5 hours either side of low water on days where day light permitted. Observers recorded all disturbance events during surveys, including potential disturbance events, noting the species and numbers present and their reaction to the disturbance event. In order to provide a series of control observations, surveys were conducted over several days prior to the dredger moving into the area, as well as during dredging activities and after dredging activities had ceased.
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 3 REPORT
The response of waterbirds present was assigned a score on a scale from 0 to 3: 0 - No behavioural change 1 - Behavioural change (e.g. vigilance or alarm call) but not flight 2 - Flew but soon returned to the site 3 - Flew and abandoned the site
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 4 REPORT
3 RESULTS 3.1 Disturbance Monitoring Survey A total of 24 hours and 40 minutes of survey were carried out over six days between 22nd October and 27th October 2019 (see Table 3.2). Full results of disturbance events are presented as Appendix 2. A summary is presented below. Observers recorded 100 events which had the potential to cause disturbance, mostly passing ships entering or leaving Dublin Port. Eighty-two events did not cause any behavioural change in any of the birds present within the survey area (see Table 3.1). The presence of the dredger, both during operation or when passing the survey area, did not cause any behavioural change in any of the birds present onsite.
Table 3.1 Ð Disturbance events recorded and levels of severity Severity level 0 1 2 3 Total No. of disturbance events 82 11 5 2 100
Eighteen disturbance events resulted in behavioural change: Eleven events, all caused by small wakes produced by passing ships, resulted in behavioural change (e.g. vigilance or alarm call) but not flight Five events, all caused by potentially predatory birds flying over, resulted in some of the birds present taking flight, but they soon returned to the site; and Two events, both caused by wakes produced by the Dublin Port pilot vessel passing at speed, resulted in some of the birds present taking flight and not returning.
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com Page 5 REPORT
Table 3.2 Ð Conditions during survey
Control / Sunrise Cloud Visibility Wind Temp. Date Observer VP Start End Tide (Met Eireann, (Beaufort Precipitation Dredging (Oktas) (¡C) / Sunset 2019) scale) 22.10.2019 AM Poolbeg Control 10:15 14:15 12:18 n/a 8/8 Excellent 1 SW 10 None 3-4 23.10.2019 NV Poolbeg Control 11:30 16:00 13:41 n/a 6/8 Very good 13 None SW 4-5 24.10.2019 NV Poolbeg Dredging 12:10 16:50 14:50 18:09 2/8 Very good 12 None NW Poolbeg 13:45 14:45 2-3 25.10.2019 AM Dredging 15:45 18:07 8/8 Moderate 6 Rain throughout Terminal 5 15:15 17:45 SW 26.10.2019 AM Terminal 5 Dredging 14:00 17:30 16:30 18:05 3/8 Excellent 3 SW 7 None 1-2 27.10.2019 NV Terminal 5 Dredging 14:00 18:00 16:15 17:03 0/8 Excellent 10-3 None NW
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019
www.rpsgroup.com Page 6 REPORT
REFERENCES CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. CIEEM (2019) Code of Professional Conduct, Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, Winchester. Cutts, N.D., Phelps, A., & Burdon, D. (2009) Construction and waterfowl: Defining sensitivity, response, impacts and guidance. Report to Humber INCA. Institute of Estuarine & Coastal Studies, University of Hull. Davidson, N.C. and Rothwell, P.I. (1993) Human disturbance to waterfowl on esturies: conservation and coastal management implications of current knowledge. Wader Study Group Bulletin 68: 97-105. Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F., and West, A.D. (2006) Critical thresholds of disturbance by people and raptors in wading birds. Biological Conservation 127, pp. 88-97. Goss-Custard, J.D., Hoppe, C.H., Hood, M.J. and Stillman, R.A. (2019) Disturbance does not have a significant impact on waders in an estuary close to conurbations: importance of overlap between birds and people in time and space. Ibis. doi:10.1111/ibi.12769 Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tuckers, G., Morris, R. and Treweek, J. (1997) Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 275-288. Marsden, S.J. (2000) Impact of Disturbance on Waterfowl Wintering in a UK Dockland Redevelopment Area. Environmental Management Vo. 26, No. 2, pp. 207-2013. Met Eireann (2019) Sea Area Forecast Terminology, [online]. Available at: https://www.met.ie/forecasts/marine-inland-lakes/sea-area-forecast-terminology [Accessed: 23 October 2019) Phalan, B. and Nairn, R.G.W. (2007) Disturbance to waterbirds in South Dublin Bay. Irish Birds 8: 223- 230. Smit, C.J., & Visser, J.M., 1993. Effects of disturbance on shorebirds: a summary of the existing knowledge from the Dutch Wadden Sea and Delta area. Wader Study Group Bulletin, 68, pp. 6-19.
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
Appendices
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
Appendix 1 - BTO Species Codes
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
Appendix 2 - Full results from disturbance survey
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019 www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
Date Time Tide Species and number present Disturbance Event Severity 22/10/219 10:20 M-L falling 260 BH, 4 CA, 6 HG, 1 OC, 2 TT, 2 RK Small survey boat passing inside bouy 0 22/10/219 10:36 M-L falling 2 BW, 3 RK, 260 BH, 4 CA, 6 HG, 2 TT Rib passing inside bouy 0 22/10/219 10:46 M-L falling 2 BW, 3 RK, 260 BH, 4 CA, 6 HG, 2 TT Rib passing inside bouy 0 22/10/219 10:58 M-L falling 2 BW, 3 RK, 260 BH, 4 CA, 6 HG, 2 TT Freight Craft "Mistral" 0 22/10/219 11:09 M-L falling 3 RK, 9 BG, 12 HG, 280 BH Rosbeg workboat passing 0 22/10/219 11:16 M-L falling 3 RK, 9 BG, 12 HG, 280 BH Ship Irish Ferries "WB Yeats" temporary wake surge 0 22/10/219 11:42 M-L falling 16 HG, 1 GB, 2 BW, 6 TT, 2 RK, 330 BH, 2 CA Buzzard flying over, being mobbed by 2 Hooded Crows 2 22/10/219 11:46 M-L falling 16 HG, 1 GB, 2 BW, 6 TT, 2 RK, 330 BH, 2 CA Kestrel flying over 2 22/10/219 12:02 Low 1 RK, 3 CA, 4 HG, 6 TT, 350 BH Stena Superfast ferry and small rib passing 0 22/10/219 12:11 Low 1 RK, 3 CA, 4 HG, 6 TT, 350 BH Seatruck 0 22/10/219 13:06 L-M rising 2 CA, 3 TT, 1 RK, 150 BH Heron flying in 0 22/10/219 13:06 L-M rising 200 BH, 9 HG Heron flying in 2 22/10/219 13:18 L-M rising 9 HG, 2 CA, 3 TT, 1 RK, 350 BH Ferry passing 0 22/10/219 13:37 L-M rising 6 HG, 1 RK, 1 TT, 300 BH Ferry passing 0 22/10/219 13:41 L-M rising 6 HG, 1 RK, 1 TT, 300 BH Dublin Port pilot boat passing causing small wake 0 23/10/2019 11:41 M-L falling 213 BH, 23 HG, 2 MU, 7 GB, 4 OC, 16 TT, 2 L, 6 RK, Rosbeg tug 140m from Quay working and making manoeuvres 0 23/10/2019 12:02 M-L falling 236 BH, 15 HG, 3 MU, 4 GB, 2 OC, 22 TT, 9 RK, Stena Superfast Passenger ferry 0 265 BH, 11 HG, 4 MU, 6 GB, 4 OC, 16 TT, 7 RK, 2 23/10/2019 12:13 M-L falling Seatruck 0 CA, 1 H. 305 BH, 14 HG, 3 MU, 8 GB, 2 OC, 10 TT, 16 RK, 4 23/10/2019 12:28 M-L falling Celtic Explorer 0 CA, 2 H, 1 GG 360 BH, 10 HG, 2 MU, 7 GB, 5 OC, 19 TT, 6 RK, 13 23/10/2019 12:49 M-L falling Small Craft Boksalis RIB Escorting Dredger out at 0 CA, 3 H, 2 GG 350 BH, 10 HG, 2 MU, 7 GB, 5 OC, 19 TT, 6 RK, 13 23/10/2019 13:23 M-L falling Freight Craft "WithDAWN" 0 CA, 3 H, 2 GG 280 BH, 7 HG, 1 MU, 8 GB, 4 OC, 16 TT, 9 RK, 15 23/10/2019 13:33 M-L falling Small Craft dublin pilot "liffey" 0 CA, 2 H, As above but around 60 BH took flight, 4 OC, 10 RK & 23/10/2019 13:41 Low 13 TT allerted and flew briefly before returning to Heron flyover Study area 2 normal 265 BH, 7 HG, 1 MU, 8 GB, 4 OC, 16 TT, 9 RK, 15 23/10/2019 13:58 Low Small Craft dublin pilot "liffey" 0 CA, 2 H,
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019
www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
261 BH, 18 HG, 1 MU, 4 GB, 1 OC, 9 TT, 5 RK, 13 Seatruck Small Wake produced caused a small surge in study area which caused a handfull of RK 23/10/2019 14:06 L-M rising 1 CA, 1 H, 1 GG and TT to alert and walk 250 BH, 16 HG, 8 GB, 1 OC, 14 TT, 8 RK, 1 H, 17 CA, 23/10/2019 14:26 L-M rising Ship BGFreight "Andromeda" 0 2 GG 236 BH, 9 HG, 1 MU, 6 GB, 2 OC, 24 TT, 7 RK, 2 H, 23/10/2019 14:43 L-M rising Ship Irish Ferries "WB Yeats" temporary oery wake surge 1 12 CA, 1 GG 225 BH, 15 HG, 2 MU, 6 GB, 4 OC, 17 TT, 9 RK, 3 H, "Rosbeg" tug 140m from Quay working and making manoeuvres 2 divers in water, 5 deck crew. 23/10/2019 14:50 L-M rising 0 14 CA, 1 GG. winch in operation 203 BH, 21 HG, 3 MU, 8 GB, 2 OC, 19 TT, 13 RK, 2 23/10/2019 15:05 L-M rising Stena Superfast Passenger ferry temporary wake surge 1 H, 16 CA, 2 GG. 168 BH, 11 HG, 4 MU, 5 GB, 1 OC, 8 TT, 3 RK, 1 H, 23/10/2019 15:10 L-M rising "Rosbeg" tug moved to 250m from Quay working and making manoeuvres 5 deck crew. 0 10 CA, 2 GG. 175 BH, 12 HG, 6 GB, 2 OC, 12 TT, 5 RK, 2 H, 14 CA, 23/10/2019 15:38 L-M rising "Rosbeg" tug moved to 300m from Quay working and making manoeuvres 5 deck crew. 0 1 GG. 325 BH, 23 HG, 2 GB, 5 MU, 2 CM, 1 OC, 25 TT, 2 24/10/2019 12:10 M-L falling Seatruck Westbound 0 RK, 1 H, 22 CA, 1 CU 325 BH, 23 HG, 2 GB, 5 MU, 2 CM, 1 OC, 25 TT, 2 24/10/2019 12:14 M-L falling Ship Irish Ferries "Epsilon" Westbound 0 RK, 1 H, 22 CA, 1 CU 325 BH, 23 HG, 2 GB, 5 MU, 2 CM, 1 OC, 25 TT, 2 Ship Stenna superfast westbound small wake surge up on beach, 15 TT moved up gull also moved a 24/10/2019 12:31 M-L falling 1 RK, 1 H, 22 CA, 1 CU few metres up 350 BH, 28 HG, 4 GB, 5 MU, 5 CM, 3 OC, 20 TT, 9 kestrel female flew over vp and flushed approximately 60% of the BH and the waders. Disturbance 24/10/2019 13:18 M-L falling 2 RK, 1 H, 18 CA, was temporary and all affected returned to area. 320 BH, 17 HG, 2 GB, 3 MU, 2 CM, 4 OC, 25 TT, 11 24/10/2019 13:28 M-L falling Seatruck Eastbound very very slow ahead no noticeable wake or bow wave produced 0 RK, 1 H, 16 CA, 1 GG 320 BH, 17 HG, 2 GB, 3 MU, 2 CM, 4 OC, 25 TT, 11 24/10/2019 13:35 M-L falling Small Craft Boksalis RIB Eastbound 0 RK, 1 H, 16 CA, 1 GG 340 BH, 24 HG, 2 GB, 3 MU, 2 CM, 4 OC, 25 TT, 11 24/10/2019 13:38 M-L falling Dredger "Freeway" Westbound 350m from vp 0 RK, 1 H, 16 CA, 1 GG 390 BH, 29 HG, 2 GB, 5 MU, 1 CM, 3 OC, 5 TT, 6 RK, 24/10/2019 13:52 M-L falling Ship BGFreight "Andromeda" Westbound small wake surge in study area 1 1 H, 13 CA, 2 GG 380 BH, 32 HG, 2 GB, 5 MU, 1 CM, 3 OC, 5 TT, 6 RK, 24/10/2019 14.02 M-L falling Ship Celtic Voyager Eastbound 0 1 H, 13 CA, 2 GG, 2 CU 370 BH, 34 HG, 2 MU, 2 CM, 2 OC, 23 TT, 12 RK, 16 24/10/2019 14:15 M-L falling Dredger "Freeway" Eastbound 210m from vp Actively dredging 0 CA, 350 BH, 28 HG, 4 GB, 5 MU, 5 CM, 3 OC, 20 TT, 9 24/10/2019 14:30 M-L falling Dredger "Freeway" Westbound 210m from vp in Reverse 0 RK, 1 H, 18 CA, 310 BH, 36 HG, 5 GB, 4 MU, 3 CM, 4 OC, 13 TT, 4 24/10/2019 14:40 Low Ship Irish Ferries "WB Yeats" temporary wake surge 1 RK, 12 CA. 310 BH, 36 HG, 5 GB, 4 MU, 3 CM, 4 OC, 13 TT, 4 24/10/2019 14:42 Low small craft brian boru 0 RK, 12 CA. 300 BH, 27 HG, 5 GB, 3 MU, 4 CM, 2 OC, 8 TT, 6 RK, Ship Stena superfast westbound small wake surge up on beach, 15 TT moved up gull also moved a 24/10/2019 14:58 L-M rising 1 5 CA, 1 CU few metres up
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019
www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
300 BH, 27 HG, 5 GB, 3 MU, 4 CM, 2 OC, 8 TT, 6 RK, 24/10/2019 15:09 L-M rising "Rosbeg" tug 250m from Quay working and making manoeuvres 5 deck crew. 0 5 CA, 1 CU 280 BH, 24 HG, 3 GB, 4 MU, 2 CM, 2 OC, 15 TT, 10 24/10/2019 15:16 L-M rising Ship "Laureline" container vessel 0 RK, 8 CA, 1 CU, z 255 BH, 17 HG, 2 GB, 2 MU, 1 CM, 1 OC, 7 TT, 6 RK, 24/10/2019 15:29 L-M rising ship Container "Mistral" Eastbound very small wake into survey area with no affect 0 5 CA, 1 CU 205 BH, 22 HG, 5 GB, 3 MU, 2 CM, 4 OC, 23 TT, 12 Seatruck "Clipperpoint" Eastbound fast ahead large noticeable wake causing localised type 1 24/10/2019 15.52 L-M rising 1 RK, 18 CA, 2 CU disturbance to @ 50 BH, 12 TT, 5 RK and 2 CU 225 BH, 17 HG, 3 GB, 10 MU, 2 OC, 13 TT, 7 RK, 23 24/10/2019 16:05 L-M rising Small Craft dublin pilot "liffey" Westbound 0 CA, 1 CU, 1 GG 295 BH, 23 HG, 6 GB, 8 MU, 6 OC, 2 BA, 20 TT, 4 24/10/2019 16:23 L-M rising large Ship "Hermine" Westbound very slow no wake 0 RK, 26 CA, 4 CU, 2 GG 345 BH, 28 HG, 2 GB, 11 MU, 4 OC, 2 BA, 13 TT, 10 24/10/2019 16:40 L-M rising "Rosbeg" tug moved 350m from Quay working and making manoeuvres 5 deck crew. 0 RK, 25 CA, 4 CU 2 CM. 25/10/2019 13:53 M-L falling 1 RK, 3 TT, 3 CA, 17 HG, 1 OC, 412 BH Pilot boat "Liffey" passing 0 25/10/2019 13:54 M-L falling 1 RK, 3 TT, 1 CU, 4 CA, 24 HG, 1 OC, 412 BH Dredger "Freeway" passing by survey area 0 25/10/2019 14:03 M-L falling 1 RK, 3 TT, 1 CU, 4 CA, 24 HG, 1 OC, 452 BH, 1MU Ship "Arklow Cape" passing 0 25/10/2019 14:07 M-L falling 6 RK, 3 TT, 1 CU, 4 CA, 24 HG, 1 OC, 551 BH, 1 MU Dredger "Freeway" slowly passing survey area until 14:17 0 1 OC. 10 TT, 5 BW, 3 CA, 4 SS, 3 RK, 1 H., 39 HG, 25/10/2019 15:32 Low Ship "Mistral" passing 0 551 BH 1 OC. 10 TT, 5 BW, 3 CA, 4 SS, 3 RK, 1 H., 39 HG, 25/10/2019 15:50 Low Ship "Hermine" passing 0 551 BH 1 OC. 10 TT, 5 BW, 3 CA, 4 SS, 3 RK, 1 H., 39 HG, 25/10/2019 16:26 L-M rising Pilot boat "Liffey" passing 0 551 BH 25/10/2019 16:49 L-M rising c.400 BH, 4 MA, 3 TT, 3 HG Seatruck "Power" passing 0 25/10/2019 16:57 L-M rising c.400 BH, 4 MA, 3 TT, 3 HG Stena "Adventurer" passing 0 25/10/2019 17:05 L-M rising c.400 BH, 4 MA, 3 TT, 3 HG P&O "Norbank" passing 0 25/10/2019 17:10 L-M rising c.400 BH, 4 MA, 3 TT, 3 HG Irish Ferries "Ulysses" passing 0 25/10/2019 17:19 L-M rising c.400 BH, 4 MA, 3 TT, 3 HG Work boat "Rosbeg" passing 0 26/10/2019 14:10 M-L falling 8 TT, 3 CA, 1 OC, 5 HG, 376 BH Small pleasure craft passing inside of bouy 0 26/10/2019 14:37 M-L falling 18 SS, 4 CA, 9 HG, 1 CU, 360 BH Pilot boat "Liffey" passing 0 26/10/2019 14:42 M-L falling 18 SS, 4 CA, 9 HG, 1 CU, 360 BH Small pleasure craft passing inside of bouy 0 26/10/2019 15:00 M-L falling 18 SS, 4 CA, 9 HG, 1 CU, 360 BH Stena Superfast X 0 26/10/2019 15:22 M-L falling 2 RK, 17 HG, 1 CA, 300 BH Irish Ferrires "WB Yeats" departing, very slowly. Almost appeared to have stopped off survey area. 0
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019
www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
26/10/2019 15:36 M-L falling 2 RK, 17 HG, 1 CA, 300 BH Tanker "Sten Nordic" and ship "Peregrine" passing 0 26/10/2019 15:58 M-L falling 56 HG, 12 SS, 1 CA, 450 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Boskalis survey boat "Smit Leyland" passing 0 26/10/2019 16:10 Low 56 HG, 12 SS, 1 CA, 450 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Boskalis survey boat "Smit Leyland" passing 0 26/10/2019 16:14 Low 56 HG, 12 SS, 1 CA, 450 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Pilot boat "Liffey" passing 0 26/10/2019 16:16 Low 56 HG, 12 SS, 1 CA, 450 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Boskalis survey boat "Smit Leyland" passing back and forth by survey area until 16:25 0 26/10/2019 16:30 Low 56 HG, 12 SS, 1 CA, 450 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Boskalis survey boat "Smit Leyland" passing 0 26/10/2019 16:37 Low 56 HG, 12 SS, 1 CA, 450 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Tanker "Thun Genius" passing 0 26/10/2019 16:39 Low 56 HG, 12 SS, 1 CA, 450 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Irish Ferries "Epsilon" 0 26/10/2019 17:09 L-M rising 72 HG, 18 SS, 3 CA, 300 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Small pleasure craft passing 0 26/10/2019 17:11 L-M rising 72 HG, 18 SS, 3 CA, 300 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Norbank 0 26/10/2019 17:16 L-M rising 72 HG, 18 SS, 3 CA, 300 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Stena Adventurer 0 26/10/2019 17:23 L-M rising 72 HG, 18 SS, 3 CA, 300 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Seatruck "Power" passing 0 26/10/2019 17:29 L-M rising 72 HG, 18 SS, 3 CA, 300 BH, 2 RK, 1 OC, 2 BW Irish Ferries "Ulysses" passing 0 380 BH, 20 HG, 10 GB, 3 MU, 1 OC, 2 BA, 20 TT, 10 27/10/2019 14:25 M-L falling small craft 2 men onboard fishing? 0 RK, 13 CA, 2 CU 8 CM, 4 GG, 380 BH, 20 HG, 10 GB, 3 MU, 1 OC, 2 BA, 20 TT, 10 27/10/2019 14:39 M-L falling Ship Irish Ferries "WB Yeats" heading out Eastbound, temporary wake surge 1 RK, 13 CA, 2 CU 8 CM, 4 GG, 400 BH, 20 HG, 10 GB, 9 MU, 4 OC, 8 BA, 20 TT, 10 27/10/2019 14:56 M-L falling Small yacht "Bona" Eastbound 0 RK, 20 CA, 6 CU 8 CM, 4 GG, 400 BH, 20 HG, 10 GB, 9 MU, 4 OC, 8 BA, 20 TT, 10 27/10/2019 15:00 M-L falling Stena Superfast Passenger ferry eastbound wake into survey area temporary disturbance 1 RK, 20 CA, 6 CU 8 CM, 4 GG, 430 BH, 20 HG, 10 GB, 9 MU, 16 OC, 18 BA, 30 TT, 27/10/2019 15.03 M-L falling Dublin Port Authority Pilot Eastbound fast small wake 0 15 RK, 20 CA, 7 CU 9 CM, 4 GG, 5 MA, 450 BH, 80 HG, 16 GB, 7 MU, 16 OC, 18 BA, 30 TT, 27/10/2019 15.22 M-L falling Ship Freighter "Bit Ecco" Eastbound small wake very slow 0 15 RK, 20 CA, 12 CU 9 CM, 6 GG, 5 MA, 450 BH, 110 HG, 19 GB, 5 MU, 18 OC, 10 BA, 20 TT, 27/10/2019 15:33 M-L falling Ship Freighter "MISTRAL" Eastbound small wake 1 15 RK, 24 CA, 12 CU 9 CM, 2 GG, 5 MA, 500 BH, 110 HG, 19 GB, 5 MU, 18 OC, 10 BA, 20 TT, 27/10/2019 15:51 M-L falling small Yacht Westbound very slow no significant wake 0 15 RK, 24 CA, 12 CU 9 CM, 2 GG, 5 MA, 1 H, 23 SS 500 BH, 110 HG, 19 GB, 5 MU, 18 OC, 10 BA, 20 TT, 27/10/2019 15:53 M-L falling Small Craft Boksalis RIB Westbound no significant wake 0 15 RK, 24 CA, 12 CU 9 CM, 2 GG, 5 MA, 1 H, 45 SS, 500 BH, 110 HG, 19 GB, 5 MU, 18 OC, 18 BA, 20 TT, 27/10/2019 15:58 M-L falling Dublin Port Authority Pilot Westbound fast small wake 0 15 RK, 24 CA, 12 CU 9 CM, 2 GG, 5 MA, 2 H, 85 SS
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019
www.rpsgroup.com REPORT
500 BH, 110 HG, 15 GB, 5 MU, 18 OC, 18 BA, 10 BW, 27/10/2019 16:12 Low 20 TT, 15 RK, 24 CA, 12 CU 9 CM, 2 GG, 5 MA, 2 H, Ship Freighter Matthew LPG slow Westbound small wake no significant disturbance 0 65 SS, 30 DN, 500 BH, 110 HG, 12 GB, 5 MU, 18 OC, 10 BA, 20 TT, 27/10/2019 16:15 Low Small yacht "Celtic Mist IWDG" Westbound 0 15 RK, 24 CA, 12 CU 9 CM, 2 GG, 5 MA, 2 H, 50 SS 600 BH, 160 HG, 54 GB, 8 MU, 25 OC, 15 BA, 10 BW, Dublin Port Authority Pilot Eastbound fast wake flushed approximately 40 SS and 20 DN which as a 27/10/2019 16:40 L-M rising 10 TT, 10 RK, 20 CA, 17 CU 15 CM, 7 GG, 3 H, 50 3 result flew northwest towards esturine mud south of the Bull wall SS, 30 DN 600 BH, 160 HG, 54 GB, 8 MU, 25 OC, 15 BA, 10 BW, 27/10/2019 17.01 L-M rising 10 TT, 10 RK, 20 CA, 17 CU 15 CM, 7 GG, 3 H, 50 Stena Adventurer passenger ferry Westbound very slow small wake no percieved disturbance. 0 SS, 30 DN 600 BH, 190 HG, 50 GB, 8 MU, 30 OC, 15 BA, 10 BW, 27/10/2019 17:13 L-M rising 10 TT, 10 RK, 20 CA, 12 CU 15 CM, 5 GG, 5 H, 35 Irish Ferries "Ulysses" Westbound slow minimal wake onto survey area. 0 SS, 20 DN 520 BH, 130 HG, 40 GB, 6 MU, 13 OC, 8 RK, 26 CA, Dublin Port Authority Pilot Westbound very fast produced that wake flushed rest of 13 SS & 20 DN 27/10/2019 17:22 L-M rising 3 6 CU 10 CM, 2 GG, 4 H, 13 SS, 20 DN, 2 TY which as a result flew northwest towards esturine mud south of the Bull wall 520 BH, 130 HG, 40 GB, 6 MU, 13 OC, 8 RK, 26 CA, 27/10/2019 17:28 L-M rising Container Freighter ""BG JADE" westbound slow no significant wake 0 6 CU 10 CM, 2 GG, 4 H, 520 BH, 130 HG, 40 GB, 6 MU, 13 OC, 8 RK, 26 CA, 27/10/2019 17:44 L-M rising Container Freighter "ELB FEEDER" westbound slow 0 6 CU 10 CM, 2 GG, 4 H,
NI1893 | Dublin Port Company | MP2 Project | Final | November 2019
www.rpsgroup.com STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF RAYMOND HOLBEACH
LANDSCAPE & VISUAL
Page 1 of 5
1 Qualifications and Experience
1.1 My name is Raymond Holbeach and I am a Regional Director for RPS. I have almost thirty years of experience in public and private sector environmental and landscape consultancy works. I have a BSc in Environmental Science and a Masters of Landscape Architecture. I am a Chartered Landscape Architect of the Landscape Institute, a member of the Irish Landscape Institute and a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.
2 Involvement in the Project
2.1 I have acted as Landscape Architect responsible for the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment provided in Chapter 15 of the EIAR for the MP2 Project.
3 Conclusions of Chapter 15 Landscape and Visual Assessment in the EIAR
3.1 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the MP2 Project at Dublin Port during both the construction and operational stages has been completed. The MP2 Project is located within a landscape character area identified as Harbour Based Industrial Landscape. This landscape character area has been identified as having a low sensitivity to change. The MP2 Project is consistent in character and appearance with this existing landscape character area. The magnitude of landscape resource change will be negligible and the significance of landscape impact will be negligible to minor negative and not significant.
3.2 The Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) has been established for the MP2 Project to allow any potential areas of significant visual impact to be identified. Actual visual impacts from within the ZTV have been predicted by site survey and assessment during the construction and operational phase on potential views from sensitive visual receptors including residential properties.
3.3 There are large areas of Dublin and the adjacent settled coastline that will not have views of the proposal due to the low lying nature of the topography and to intervening vegetation and buildings. It is only in close proximity to the site that there will be potential direct views at Ringsend to the southwest and the coast road from Clontarf to Howth that is located to the north. The existing port facilities including ships and cranes and traffic are all features of the existing views and there will be few new features visible from the wider ZTV.
3.4 For residential properties with potential views in the direction of the MP2 Project the predicted significance of visual impact will be minor negative and not significant.
3.5 A total of 15 viewpoints have been assessed from within the ZTV and no viewpoints have been predicted to have significant visual impacts.
3.6 No significant cumulative landscape and visual effects have been predicted.
4 Submissions and Responses
4.1 In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on landscape and visual
Page 2 of 5
assessment. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential issue raised.
4.2 Dublin City Council
Issue #1:
Submission: The submission states “While it is considered that the proposed development would result in a noticeable change in the receiving environment, particularly when viewed from the South Wall of Dublin Port, it is considered that the development would not result in significant negative landscape and visual effects, either individually or cumulatively”.
Response
It is acknowledged that DCC agree with the findings of the LVIA that the proposed development would not result in significant negative landscape and visual effects, either individually or cumulatively.
While the proposed development will be more noticeable when viewed from the South Wall area the submitted LVIA has shown that all of the elements of the proposed development will be read fully in the context of the existing port facilities resulting in a small change in visual resource and no significant effects.
Issue #2:
Submission: The submission states “Parks and Landscape services have also reviewed the LVIA, and found it acceptable, however in terms of mitigation and overall greening of the port it is recommended that a landscape/greening plan should be prepared for the application site area and should be conditioned subject to the approval of the application”:
Response
It is acknowledged that DCC Parks and Landscape services have reviewed the LVIA, and found it acceptable.
With regards to the need for mitigation it is the finding of the LVIA, as confirmed by DCC Parks and Landscape services, that the proposed development will not result in any significant landscape and visual effects and therefore no specific landscape mitigation is required within the area for the proposed development.
It should be noted that extensive landscape planting is proposed as part of the approved Greenway Project (DCC planning ref: 3084/16) that when completed will provide screening of the proposed development and the wider Dublin Port facilities in views from the surrounding urban landscape.
4.3 Mr Peadar Buckley, Hollybrook Residents Association
Issue #3:
Submission: The submission states “..the physical and visible environment of Dublin Bay from the Clontarf and the Bull Wall will become a lot less attractive and more
Page 3 of 5
industrialised by the construction of Berth 53 and its use by large Ro-Ro shipping”.
Response
Chapter 15 of the EIAR has assessed, in detail, the potential views from Clontarf and Bull Island in Section 15.4.1.4 Visual Impacts on Residential Properties and also in Section 15.4.2 Viewpoint Assessment. Further, the assessment of visual impacts has been assisted by preparation of photomontages provided in Appendix 15. The photomontages from Viewpoint 3 Ð Bull Island; Viewpoint 4 St Anne’s Park Clontarf; Viewpoint 5 Clontarf Road; Viewpoint 6 Bull Wall; and Viewpoint 12 Clontarf Promenade illustrate the predicted view of the constructed Berth 53 from the Clontarf and Bull Wall areas.
The existing context of the view from Clontarf and Bull Wall, when looking south and southwest towards Berth 53, is visually dominated by the presence of the Poolbeg Power Plant with its tall twin chimneys as well as the adjacent Gas Turbine Station and the port facilities that include tall cranes. In addition, within this view are regular views to ships at berth or coming to and departing from Dublin Port.
As illustrated by the photomontages in Appendix 15 to the EIAR, the proposed Berth 53 and its associated jetty will be visible in views from Clontarf Road (to the west of Bull Wall) and from Bull Wall. Berth 53 and the jetty will be difficult to discern from the existing industrial and port related facilities visible within the views and will not be prominent. In this regard, the Berth 53 and jetty will not detract from existing views nor make views less attractive and will be consistent in character with the more prominent existing industrialised and port related landscape visible from such views.
Ships berthed at Berth 53, while more noticeable than the proposed infrastructure at Berth 53, will be transitory in nature and will be read with ships that are continually coming and going from Dublin Port as well as the existing industrialised and port related landscape visible in views from Clontarf and Bull Wall and will not make such views less attractive.
The MP2 project is predicted to have a minor to moderate visual impact in views from Bull Wall.
The MP2 project is predicted to have a minor to moderate visual impact in views from Clontarf Promenade.
Issue #4:
Submission: “At present most shipping docks within the partly screened area of the port. There are no proposals to screen Berth 53”.
Response
The submission correctly states that the existing port facilities provide existing screening to the built features, ships and activities within Dublin Port. This existing screening also prevent views to the majority of the proposed development with only the eastern most components partly visible from the Clontarf area.
Page 4 of 5
The completed LVIA has confirmed that due to the distance of views, the harbour industrial related background context of views, the transitory nature of ships at berth and being read with existing shipping that no significant landscape and visual effects will occur from Clontarf and therefore no landscape mitigation is required to screen the proposed development.
It should be noted that extensive landscape planting is proposed as part of the approved Greenway Project (DCC planning ref: 3084/16) that when completed will provide screening to the proposed development in views from Clontarf direction.
5 Conclusion
5.1 Overall the MP2 Project will be difficult to discern from the existing activities and features at Dublin Port.
5.2 As no significant landscape or visual impacts have been predicted there is no requirement for specific landscape mitigation measures.
5.3 In conclusion the broader landscape character area and visual context around Dublin Port area has the capacity to absorb a development of this scale.
Page 5 of 5
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA (ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT MP2 PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF NIALL BRADY, PhD FSA CHRIS SOUTHGATE, MA Cantab MIStructE FIEI C Eng
SEÁN Ó LAOIRE. B.ARCH F.R.I.A.I
CULTURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION ENGINEER AND CONSERVATION CONSULTANT INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE IMPACTS AND COMPENSATION PLANNING AND DESIGN
Page 1 of 12
Qualifications and Experience
1.1.1 This Witness Statement is a joint statement that includes the observations of the Cultural Heritage team leaders; namely, Chris Southgate, Conservation Engineer, dealing with Conservation Matters; Seán Ó Laoire, Architect, dealing with Industrial Heritage Impacts and Compensation Planning and Design; and myself, dealing with Archaeology.
1.1.2 I am Dr Niall Brady, FSA. I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology and Geography, and a Master s Degree in Archaeology from UCD (1983, 1986), and a PhD in Medieval Studies from Cornell University, USA (1996). I am founding director of the Archaeological Diving Company (ADCO) Ltd (1999-present). I am the national representative for Ireland on the Ruralia committee, a European network of archaeologists concerned with the development of rural landscape. I am honorary Newsletter Editor for the Society for Medieval Archaeology (2010-present), and Honorary Editor of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland (2016-present).
1.1.3 I have more than 25 years experience of marine archaeology, where I have been involved in both research and consultancy. I was the lead archaeologist for Dublin Port s Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project EIS and I am currently the archaeological project manager for the ABR project.
1.1.4 Chris Southgate holds a Master of Arts Degree in Engineering from Cambridge University. He is a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institute of Structural Engineers and a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland. He has 25 year s experience of working almost exclusively on historic structures and was the first Engineer in Ireland to set up a specialist Conservation Engineering Consultancy. He is currently Managing Director of Southgate Associates.
1.1.5 Since the year 2000, he has considerable experience not only in the technical aspects of historic building and engineering conservation but also on conservation strategy planning. Chris has acted as Conservation Consultant producing Conservation Management strategies for many public and private buildings.
1.1.6 In 2014 he worked both as conservation engineer and conservation consultant to develop a Conservation Strategy for Dublin Port Company [DPC] for the ABR Project. This required an engineering background in order to identify opportunities for a balanced strategy which took into account a best practice conservation approach based on international conservation charters together with the design brief. This was followed in 2018 by assisting ADCO on this project regarding the Conservation Strategy for MP2, together with contributions to the Built Industrial Heritage section of Chapter 14 of the EIAR.
1.1.7 Seán Ó Laoire is a registered Architect and a Fellow and former President of the RIAI. He also holds post-graduate qualifications in Urban Design. He is a Consultant Director in MOLA Architecture.
1.1.8 Over four decades, Seán has been responsible for a diverse range of projects, many of which presented challenges centred on the integration of contemporary interventions in historic and protected structures, besides having episodic engagement with the Masterplanning of the renewed Dublin Docklands.
Page 2 of 12
1.1.9 Seán has advised DPC on its “Soft Values Framework” and has had collaborative engagement in heritage compensation measures in the ABR Project, besides being responsible for the restoration of the Dublin Port Diving Bell.
2 Involvement in the Project
2.1.1 I am the principal author of section 14 of the EIS, Cultural Heritage, which was submitted as part of the application for permission to An Bord Pleanála on 11th July 2019.
2.1.2 I have carried out the desk-based appraisal and site inspections for this project. I have managed the archaeological aspects of the marine geophysical survey, and I have interpreted that data. I have coordinated and participated in the diver-truthing of the marine geophysical anomalies observed and in the survey of the eastern breakwater pier head. I have worked with the project team to advise on wider aspects of the project and the Port s conservation of the Great South Wall.
2.1.3 Chris Southgate is the co-author of the Conservation Strategy for MP2 with Ciara O Flynn from his office (Building Archaeologist) and Trevor Wood (Conservation Engineer) as a sub consultant to ADCO. He was also engaged to advise on the Built Industrial Heritage aspects of the EIAR Chapter 14 and suitable mitigation measures. During the production of the EIAR, Chris also oversaw Ciara O Flynn s role to liaise with MOLA architecture on mitigation measures for the project in liaison with ADCO and the RPS group.
2.1.4 Seán Ó Laoire is the principal author of the “Industrial Heritage Impacts and Compensation Planning and Design Report” submitted as part of this application. He was supported by Kieran Fitzgerald, Architect, Associate of MOLA Architecture, who is an architect accredited Grade 3 (Conservation).
Page 3 of 12
3 Conclusions of Chapter 14 in the EIAR
3.1.1 There are no protected sites located within the planning application boundary.
3.1.2 The proposed development around the area of the Eastern Breakwater at Dublin Port is a response by DPC to the demand for increased deep-water facilities and the requirement for sustainable development of the facility to ensure future use. This involves interventions to elements of the Victorian construction. However, without these developments there is a danger that the established cultural significance of the port would be lost if the port could not continue to function.
3.1.3 The EIAR has identified, recorded and assessed the cultural heritage assets and potential impacts associated with the MP2 Project. Existing records and newly- commissioned work present a robust baseline of information above and below the waterline.
3.1.4 The principal cultural heritage constraint identified is the demolition of the Eastern Breakwater Pier Head, which was built in the nineteenth century to mark the original entrance to the Port s deep water basin. DPC has adopted a best practice approach to conservation on the site to preserve the cultural significance of Dublin Port as a Deep Water Port. A detailed historical analysis with an Industrial Archaeological Assessment by the Heritage team has informed the process of developing a conservation strategy to best practice standards for the development.
3.1.5 The Pier Head will be removed and this work will be monitored archaeologically under licence from the National Monuments Service. The stonework will be salvaged and incorporated into a new public realm element that celebrates the heritage of the Port. It is part of Dublin Port Company s commitment to public interaction based on the Soft Values of Seaports approach. Southgate Associates have coordinated with MOLA Architecture to design interpretive public realm elements at the eastern boundary of the port, which involves re-building an element of the Pier head of the Eastern breakwater and incorporating the salvaged lantern and bell from the now demolished Victorian lighthouse. This will reinstate the totemic elements of the port in a tangible way. In addition, the former location of the Pier Head will be recorded on the adjacent section of new quay at Berth 50A.
3.1.6 It is expected that elements of the original Eastern Breakwater exist under Breakwater Road, and that these elements will survive in situ beneath Berth 50A.
3.1.7 Archaeological monitoring of ground and seabed disturbance activities will take place across the MP2 Project area, ensuring that a robust record is maintained and that any new cultural heritage observations are resolved fully.
3.1.8 Having reviewed the operational requirements of the Port, the extent of the heritage assets in the proposed development area and taking account of the long history of Dublin Port as a deep water port, we believe that the development proposals and the mitigation measures proposed under the Cultural Heritage and the Conservation Strategy accord with best conservation practice.
Page 4 of 12
4 Submissions and Responses
In preparing this witness statement, the Heritage team has considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on cultural heritage. We have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing our response to the essential point being made.
4.1 Submissions on the removal of the pier head on the eastern breakwater
4.1.1 Submission # 1
DCC notes that as part of the current application the Pier Head of the Eastern Breakwater will be removed. (pp 9, 20-21, 25) The application has been reviewed by the Planning Authority s Conservation Officer who has set out that while there are no architectural features of built heritage designed within the development area, it is noted that the Eastern Breakwater is included in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCIHR 19-09- 002).
Response
DPC notes the submission of DCC and has treated the Eastern Breakwater as a structure of Heritage interest. This is in accordance with the Dublin City Council Development Plan where Policy CHC9 states:
It is the policy of DCC that where preservation in situ is not feasible, sites of archaeological in ere hall be bjec o pre er a ion b record according o be prac ice in ad ance of redevelopment.
4.1.2 Submission # 2
DCC notes (pp 21, 35) that the Planning Authority s Conservation Section has objected to the proposed deconstruction, removal and relocation of the historic 19th- century Bindon Stoney Blood Pier and it is not considered to accord with best conservation practice and conservation principles, nor the Dublin Principles in relation to Industrial heritage, and would result in the loss of one of the last surviving significant features of maritime interests within the port.
Response
The justification for the removal of the breakwater is presented in the EIAR, and we refer to Alan Barr s expert witness statement, section 5.1.2, Submission # 4. Principal 12 of the Dublin Principles allows for preservation by record in circumstances where components have to be removed. It is submitted that Dublin Port Company has proposed suitable mitigation measures.
Page 5 of 12
4.1.4 Submission # 3 DCC (p. 21) notes that it is clear that the pier head wall has significant heritage value, as set out by both the applicant and the Council s Conservation Section, and its loss, as currently proposed, is regrettable. That being said it is clear the existing port is spatially confined, and the updated Port Masterplan focuses upon the optimisation of the existing lands. It is considered that the extension to the permitted greenway and proposed heritage zone is considered to be a substantial mitigation and planning gain. Accordingly, on balance the proposed loss for the existing Pier Head is considered acceptable. Response Dublin Port Company is in agreement with Dublin City Council that, on balance, the loss of the pier head is considered acceptable. DPC is also of the opinion that the proposed heritage zone is considered to be a substantial mitigation and planning gain.
4.1.6 Submission # 4 DCC Conservation Officer (pp 35–36) is concerned about continued incremental losses where heritage and its significance is adversely affected by such development. Response DPC s commitment to Port heritage is embodied in its Masterplan 2040 (Masterplan chapter 8), where the Port recognises the need to increase access and awareness of the Port s cultural heritage dimension. To this end, in 2018 the Port established its Port Heritage and Communication s Department with a team that includes the appointment of two heritage officers. In addition to the restoration of the 19th-century Diving Bell, now a successful museum on Sir John Rogerson s Quay, and opening- up the area around Port Centre as part of its Soft Values policy of softening and enlivening the Port s boundaries with the city, the permitted greenway along the northern edge of the Port will help bring the public into the Port estate. The former Odlum s grain silo, built in 1921, will be redeveloped as a cultural quarter, while the ongoing archaeological monitoring of the ABR project is observing and recording the historic port as it is being revealed under the buried surfaces. In addition, the Port is upgrading the cataloguing of its 300-year old paper and illustration collections, while also restoring Bullock Harbour in Dalkey following the devastation wrought by Storm Emma.
4.2 Submissions on the Heritage Gain proposals
4.2.1 Submission # 5
Dublin City Council have recorded its view that the removal of the Pier Head is regrettable. In doing so, it also recognises that its removal is a collateral impact of Dublin Port s Company s requirement to upgrade its infrastructural to facilitate the contemporary and future commercial shipping requirements within a confined
Page 6 of 12
footprint. It further records that “the extension of the permitted Greenway and proposal heritage zone is considered to be a substantial mitigation and planning gain. Accordingly, on balance the proposed loss for the existing Pier Head is considered acceptable”.
Response
Retention of the Pier Head, in any meaningful manner “in situ” was simply not an option, for a combination of very real marine engineering, logistical, security, and health and safety concerns, - coupled with the reality that its location would never be publicly accessible in the operational reality envisaged and planned for.
This reality framed Seán Ó Laoire s own, and that of the Heritage Team s, approach to proposing mitigation measures.
The mitigation measures proposed, while centred on the “Heritage Zone”, can be seen in the largest context of the DPC s “Soft Values” Strategic Framework, which promotes initiatives and projects framed to connect the Port to the City and beyond. One such project, the restored Dublin Port Diving Bell is an homage to Bindon Blood Stoney, engineer of the Pier Head. The heritage mitigation measures proposed in the ABR Project, includes a publicly accessible ensemble centred on the engineering legacy of Blood Stoney, entered from the East Wall Road.
Scrupulous surveying provides the foundation for a key mitigation measure; namely, preservation by record. This data will be available to inform the narrative and interpretive material in both the “Blood Stoney Ensemble” at the East Wall Road and in the proposed “Marker” in the Heritage Zone. This material will also be available to the Dublin Port Company s Archives, universities, and such bodies as the Irish Architectural Archive and the National Monuments Service.
Procedures now in place will ensure the safe storage of salvaged stone, which will be used primarily to delineate accurately the (partial) ground plane geometry of the Pier Head which will evoke the location of the previously demolished Alexandra Lighthouse, in the form of a wrought granite “base”; a 4.875m square plan – being the dimension shown in the working drawings of the 1904 Lighthouse. The proposals also include the marking “in situ” of the site of the Pier Head, post-demolition.
Dublin City Council s planners expressed a concern, based on an interpretation of CGI s about the quality of concrete particularly in the “stepped feature” and generally in the Heritage Zone. Seán Ó Laoire is confident that all finishes and material specifications will be fit to purpose and be aesthetically pleasing. Equally, he is assuming that quality can be assured by way of appropriate planning conditions and pre-construction approval by Dublin City Council.
Page 7 of 12
4.3 Submissions on the Great South Wall, North Bull Wall and Dublin Harbour
4.3.1 Submission # 6
Notwithstanding the exclusion of the Great South Wall from the subject site, the Planning Authority s Conservation Section (pp 21, 26, 32, 37) have raised concerns about the continued and likely impacts of increased scouring/dredging/water movements that will arise from the proposed development on the South Wall, a Protected Structure and Recorded Monument within a Conservation Area..
Response Based on the Expert witness statement of Adrian Bell:
A submission has been received from the Dublin City Council concerning potential impacts on the stability of the Great South Wall from increased ferry traffic resulting from the MP2 Project. It has been shown that as a result of the speed restriction imposed within Dublin Port, the wash wave heights at the Great South Wall from ferries operating in Dublin Port are very small and that the Great South Wall is much more exposed to natural wind waves which have much more wave energy than the wash waves. Although the Great South Wall needs to be maintained, the MP2 Project will not significantly impact the stability of this structure.
It appears to Chris Southgate (Conservation Engineer) that the deterioration of the Great South Wall is substantially gradual and time-related due to action of tide and swell over time. Dublin Port Company has been monitoring movement in the wall for several years. We concur with the opinion of Adrian Bell that the MP2 project will have no impact on the Great South Wall. The Great South Wall is a highly significant Heritage Asset and Dublin Port Company can understand Dublin City Council s concern regarding long-term strategies for conservation. The Port Engineer Eamon McElroy has provided the following information: In 2014 Dublin Port Company made the decision to carry out new and extensive condition surveys of its historical structures, namely the Great South Wall (GSW), the Bull Wall, the Bull Wall Bridge and Bulloch Harbour to establish the general condition of the structures. These new surveys would follow from the GSW condition surveys of 2004 and 2007. The new surveys would for the first time use new technologies to establish accurate 3D models. Surveys started spring 2015 and took the form of the following activities:
Onsite visual inspections. GI bore holes to establish fill material for both the GSW and Bulloch Harbour. The monitoring of cracks on the surface of the GSW. LiDAR survey with laser scanners above water.
Page 8 of 12
High Frequency Sonic SONAR survey below water.
Identical surveys were repeated in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 with the 3D models generated and overlapped to monitor movement. Survey results over the past 5 years have shown no movement on all structures. Asset Management and Assessment Plans have been formed for all the historical structures. In 2020 DPC will carry out crack repairs on the GSW monitored by a Conservation Engineer and under licence from the National Monuments Service. From this we have concluded that the wall is not under immediate threat. The Heritage team has addressed the issue of a need for a Conservation Management Plan for the Great South Wall and other heritage assets of the Port with Dublin Port Company. We understand from the Port Engineer that separately to the measures for conservation in the MP2 project: A budget of 185,000 has been set for 2020 to develop a Conservation Management Plan for the GSW supported by engineering and modelling studies and for maintenance purposes. Dublin Port Company will tender this work early next year.
4.4 Submissions on Archaeology
4.4.1 Submission # 7
The submitted EIAR was reviewed by Dublin City Council s Archaeology Section (pp 21-22). The submitted assessment discusses the potential impact of the proposed development on both terrestrial and marine archaeological features and deposits. This document highlights the desk-based assessment, marine geophysical survey, site investigations (boreholes), detailed topographical survey, site inspections and underwater inspections undertaken to assess the nature of the archaeological resource within the subject site. The conclusion is reached that there are no recorded monuments within the subject site and no archaeological material (including shipwrecks) was located as a result of the listed surveys/investigations. As such, the suggested archaeological mitigation suggested in the EIAR is monitoring of terrestrial intertidal foreshore and seabed disturbances associated with the proposed development. This office concurs that an archaeological monitoring brief should be included as a condition with any grant of permission for the proposed development. Response Dublin Port Company has completed these surveys and assessments and endorses the recommendation that an archaeological monitoring brief should be included as a condition of any grant of permission. In addition, Chapter 14 of the EIAR and its appendices set out clearly the archaeological approach undertaken to assess the cultural heritage constraints associated with the proposed project. Where impact avoidance is not possible, the
Page 9 of 12
mitigations proposed are in keeping with the protocol for Preservation by Record, and the mitigations associated with monitoring ground and seabed disturbances are those that apply to the permitted ABR project, where the progress of observations and recordings conducted under licence from the National Monuments Service is robust and is adding new insight that informs the history and development of the Port 4.4.2 Submission # 8 The Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht have reviewed the archaeological assessment and other documentation associated with the scheme, and recommend that the mitigation measures detailed in the assessment are carried out in full, and that the geophysical anomalies identified should be the subject of dive survey. Response Dublin Port Company has completed these surveys and assessments, including the dive surveys (EIAR), and endorses the recommendation that an archaeological monitoring brief should be included as a condition of any grant of permission.
4.5 Submission on concern over the potential of shipwreck discovery by dredging activities
4.5.1 Submission # 9
Peadar Farrell (p. 3) is concerned that there is a high probability of discovering shipping antiquities in the areas to be dredged and that such areas should be excavated out in the dry to ensure proper supervision and proper Archaeology procedure is followed.
Response:
Section 14.3.1 of the EIAR (page 14-3 and Figure 14-3) describes the eighteenth- century historic map by cartographer John Rocque, which includes a location referred to as ‘The Pacquet Moorings , where cross-channel ships would lie at anchor. The localised channel widening area for the MP2 Project will extend into part of this space.
Comprehensive marine geophysical survey, conducted under licence from the National Monuments Service to further assess the archaeological potential of the MP2 survey footprint, and that portion of the former Pacquet Moorings located within it, identified sixteen acoustic anomalies in the multi-beam data across the survey area. Subsequent dive inspection of these anomalies, licensed by the National Monuments Service, did not identify shipwreck material or related archaeological features exposed on the seabed surface (Section 14.1.1.1 pages 14-7, 14-8; Section 14.1.1.5 pages 14-9–14-14, Table 14-2). It is likely that one feature on the north side of the channel (Anomaly T13) refers to the footings of a pre-existing navigation aid. There was no indication of material associated with the former Pacquet Moorings exposed on the seabed, although the potential remains for material to lie buried in the silts. This potential is recognised in the EIAR (Section 14.4.3, pages 14-15–14-
Page 10 of 12
16) and appropriate mitigation measures are presented to resolve any such discovery of material that may be made in the course of the proposed works.
The mitigation measures proposed within the EIAR reflect the standard operating procedure for the excavation of large areas of seabed in a capital dredging context, while maintaining a wet environment that supports the long-term preservation of material recovered from a marine environment. Archaeological monitoring of dredging operations is an efficient and robust means of removing shallow silts from an open area of seabed that is part of a working port. The process permits the close recording of excavation progress and the safe recovery of material of archaeological interest.
Archaeological monitoring of the capital dredging works for the ABR project is a successful application of this methodology in accordance with the planning conditions for that project. An Archaeology Management Plan presents a high-level overview with specific protocols embedded to ensure robust archaeological monitoring and the mitigations required in the event of the discovery of in situ remains. Archaeologists are present continuously on site aboard the dredging vessel, to record the progress of dredging and to inspect the dredge-head whenever the dredge-head is raised aboard. The dredge-head is fitted with a grill that acts as a filter for larger objects so that they can be recovered. The dredger s progress is mapped electronically, and the vessel s track-plots are examined by the archaeologist, who maintains an independent log of the vessel position and events. When the dredge-head is returned to the vessel, it is inspected and any material of archaeological interest that may be lodged in the grill of the dredge-head is recovered and stored safely on board the dredger. When the vessel berths alongside the quays, the recovered material is transferred to the secure wet-storage facility within Dublin Port Company s Heritage Zone, where it is then examined in greater detail.
Seasons 1 and 2 of the capital dredging have recovered 225 objects of archaeological interest over two years, most of which are pieces of ships timbers, and the majority of which are determined to be isolated pieces that do not form part of in situ wreckage. Some cannon balls and even a lead bullet were also recovered. One new shipwreck site has been identified by this process – the discovery of which was made by the monitoring archaeologists. The protocol for such a discovery event was activated, applying an exclusion zone around the potential source location, within which further dredging is prohibited until such time as the archaeological potential is resolved. Marine geophysical survey confirmed the possibility of wreckage within the exclusion zone, and subsequent archaeological dive inspection confirmed the presence of wreckage, completed a detailed record, and permitted the reduction of the exclusion zone to a size area that maintains the protection of the site. The wreck site is protected and is subject to annual surveys and inspections through DPC, to monitor its condition.
Excavation by marine dredging is an entirely appropriate and effective operating procedure, and the application of robust archaeological monitoring ensures that proper supervision and procedures are followed.
Page 11 of 12
4.6 Submissions by the Dublin Business Forum
Submission # 10 The Dublin Business Forum s submission, which is substantially focused on questioning Dublin Port Company s role and the continuation of Port operations in their current location, posed a question: Will the Heritage piece work? This is presumed to refer to the “Heritage Zone”. It noted that it is located “deep inside the working Port Campus” – and therefore diminished in its capacity to “receive the footfall appropriate to its success”.
Response This observation would seem to disregard the fact that the Heritage Zone is located at the terminus of the “Greenway”, itself a major transformative addition to the public realm, giving access to the heart of port operations.
Equally, the observation would appear not to take account of the proposed public realm heritage “attractors” accessible from East Wall Road”.
5 Conclusion
The observations raised by Dublin City Council in relation to the Eastern Breakwater Pier Head recognize the necessity to remove the feature, and to have this and other ground and seabed disturbances monitored archaeologically. They also acknowledge the heritage gain presented by Dublin Port Company s plan to salvage the stone from the Pier Head and incorporate it into a new public realm element that celebrates the heritage of the Port.
We respectfully submit the above-mentioned project, and the Heritage Zone would give citizens and visitors unprecedented access to Dublin Port and its heritage and legacy. We also submit that the Heritage Zone will, in time, with the “Greenway” as a conduit, become an iconic destination and landmark.
The Great South Wall is recognized by Dublin Port Company as a key element in the cultural heritage of the port estate. The Port s study of the wall and the hydrodynamics indicates that increased ferry movements resulting from the MP2 Project are small and a fraction of the wave energy that the Great South Wall is exposed to naturally.
The observation raised by Peadar Farrell in relation to the marine pocket to be dredged will be resolved archaeologically according to best practice by monitoring under licence from the National Monuments Service the marine dredging to be undertaken, and recording and recovering any items that may be recovered in the course of that work.
Page 12 of 12
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION TO AN BORD PLEANÁLA
(ABP-304888-19)
ORAL HEARING
DUBLIN PORT
MP2
PROJECT
WITNESS STATEMENT OF CAPT. MICHAEL MCKENNA
NAVIGATION
Page 1 of 14
1. Qualifications and Experience
1.1.1. My name is Michael McKenna; I am the Harbour Master at Dublin Port Company. I hold a Master Mariner s Certificate of Competency (Unlimited), a Master s Degree (Hons) in Emergency Management and a Diploma in Ship Management. I am an Associate Fellow of the Nautical Institute and a member of the Irish Institute of Master Mariners. I have represented the Irish Chamber of Shipping to update the International Chamber of Shipping publication The Bridge Procedures Guide (5th Edition). I am formally trained in Marine Accident Investigation and Human Factors.
1.1.2. I have twenty-four years of experience working on commercial ships trading worldwide. Having commenced my training in 1991 with an Oil Major I qualified as a Ships Officer in 1994 and continued sailing on medium size oil tankers and super- tankers. By 1998 I had been promoted up through the ranks to Chief Officer (2nd in command). In 1998 I achieved my Masters Mariners Certificate of Competency (Unlimited).
1.1.3. In 2000 I moved to the RORO Passenger Ferry industry sailing in Officer Ranks for 5 years and as Master (Captain) for 10.5 years. Whilst working for the RORO Passenger ferry company I held a Pilot Exemption Certificate at Dublin Port for eleven years. During this time as Captain, I commanded and manoeuvred large passenger ferries at Dublin Port and other NW European Ports including the ship MV Ulysses for 3.5 years. All this took place during the various weather conditions that we experience including a number of extreme weather events. I have carried out formal and approved Human Factors training for ships officers and for three years I was an accident investigator for the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. In 2016 I joined Dublin Port Company as Harbour Master.
1.1.4. I have attended and conducted many real-time ship simulator training projects for the purposes of ship-handling training, marine pilot training, conducting assessments of ship-handling candidates and conducting human factors training. I have also attended two Manned Model ship-handling training courses in my early ship-handling years and undertaken the ship-handling training of numerous ships officers. I have performed Safety Management System audits onboard ships having completed formal audit training with Lloyds Register.
Page 2 of 14 1.1.5. I perform the statutory role of a Harbour Master in accordance with the Harbours Act 1996, as amended. Included within this role is responsibility for the regulation and control of ships and leisure craft within the jurisdiction of Dublin Port Company (River Liffey and Dublin Bay). I am also the Superintendent of the Pilot service including the Pilot Exemption Certificate system under which the RORO Ferries and other frequent calling vessels operate.
2. Involvement in the Project
2.1.1. As part of the MP2 Project team I conducted a series of real-time ship simulator sessions at a world leading ship simulator centre HR Wallingford. The simulator sessions were carried out at each stage of the development of the navigation design for the MP2 project. The purpose of the simulator sessions was to view and examine the proposed berth and channel layouts with the highest degree of fidelity available and to perform real-time ship manoeuvres where meteorological and tidal conditions can be replicated. The combination of these factors then allowed for accurate measuring and assessment of the safety and performance of ships manoeuvres in the MP2 area of Dublin Port.
2.1.2. Each of the simulation sessions was attended by me, a Dublin Port Pilot, a marine pilot provided by the simulator centre and members of the project team. Each of the individual manoeuvres within the simulator was performed by one of the pilots and or myself. Each of the simulation runs were planned, executed, reviewed and scored so as to maintain continuity between each of the simulator sessions and the simulated options. The aim of the above was to iterate various designs so as to conclude with a set of berth designs that allow for consistently safe manoeuvres by RORO ferries with manoeuvring systems appropriate for the ships length in relation to the channel space available.
3. Conclusions of the Appendix 4 – Assessment of Alternatives - Navigation Study of the EIA
3.1.1. Dublin Port performed a series of five navigation studies involving real-time ship simulation modelling in order to iteratively consider the design options and alternatives within the limiting factors of channel space and proximity to the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA).
Page 3 of 14 Session 1 - September 2017 considered turning the ships in the channel areas adjacent to Berth 49, previously consented Berth 52 and proposed Berth 53. Whilst the manoeuvres were performed successfully the clearances achieved were considered sub-optimal. An important factor was the use of ship model De ign vessel 1 for the manoeuvres.
Session 2 - November 2017 considered the use of a manoeuvring area further to the east so that vessels turning on arrival or departure would have a larger area to do so. The option of a manoeuvring area to the south of the channel was preferred and allowed for unforced manoeuvres with acceptable tolerances.
Session 3 February 2018 was carried out to ensure the berthing line of Berth 53 did not encroach into the SPA on the north side of the channel. Resultantly, the berthing lines in respect of the channel width required adjustment in the length and marginal adjustments in alignment so as to allow manoeuvres with sufficient clearances.
Session 4 May 2018 involved an analysis of seven alternative options to the preliminary design in order to achieve optimisation. The preferable design option increased the navigable area particularly past proposed Berth 53 and allowed for improved manoeuvres.
Session 5 November 2018 was carried out having de-scoped the manoeuvring area and involved the use of more manoeuvrable ships than Design Vessel 1 . Ships with more manoeuvring power and bow / stern thrusters were used for this study. The improved Design vessel 3 & De ign Vessel 4 are more in line with the design of the larger RORO ferries currently operating at Dublin Port. Design Vessels 3 & 4 allowed for more precise manoeuvring and a tighter tolerance of position-keeping within the available space. These vessels combined with some additional dredging allowed for manoeuvres to be performed safely and with the required clearances.
The navigation study allowed the project team to design and then visualise the MP2 area in an accurately simulated dynamic environment. This presented a platform to carry out and study the manoeuvring of the Design Vessels.
4. Submissions and Responses
In preparing this witness statement, I have considered, in particular, each of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála by various parties in relation to the appraisal of potential impacts of the MP2 Project on navigation and ship emissions. I have addressed each submission or observation in turn below, before providing my response to the essential
Page 4 of 14 point being made.
4.1 Issue #1 – Concern over air emissions from ships at berth.
Submission by Mr. Peadar Buckley states: Mo shipping starts off with a large puff of black moke
Submission by Mr. Peadar Farrell: Reference to he air pollution caused by the dirty fuel that they b n.
4.2.1 Response: I will outline here the current ship emission requirements and the approaching improvement in standards required of ships which will come into force on 1 January 2020.
The Sea Pollution (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2010 (S.I No. 313 of 2010) implement into Irish law the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) MARPOL Convention.
The European Union (Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels) Regulations 2015 (S.I No. 361 of 2015) implement into Irish law certain provisions of Directive 2012/33/EU as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels.
Pre-1 January 2020 Marine Fuel Sulphur Content Limits
3.50% m/m for NON-PASSENGER ships outside (Sulphur) Emission Control Areas (in effect since 1 January 2012); 1.50% m/m for PASSENGER ships operating outside (Sulphur) Emission Control Areas on regular services to, or from, a port in the State, or, in the case of a passenger ship which is an Irish ship, operating outside (Sulphur) Emission Control Areas on regular services to, or from, a port in another EU Member State (in effect since 20 August 2015); 0.10% m/m for ALL ships (including passenger ships) inside (Sulphur) Emission Control Areas (in effect since 1 January 2015); 0.10% m/m for ALL ships at berth in a port in the State, or, an Irish ship at berth in a port in another EU Member State (in effect since 20 August 2015).
Page 5 of 14 Post- 1January 2020-and-onwards Marine Fuel Sulphur Content Limits
0.50% m/m for ALL ships (including passenger ships) outside (Sulphur) Emission Control Areas;
0.10% m/m for ALL ships (including passenger ships) inside (Sulphur) Emission Control Areas;
0.10% m/m for ALL ships at berth in a port in the State, or, an Irish ship at berth in a port in another EU Member State.
As can be seen from the above, the current sulphur limits of 3.5% and 1.5% will both be reduced to 0.5% by the introduction of a global cap of 0.5%. The Marine Survey Office of the Department of Transport Tourism and Sport regulate and enforce the requirements of the use of marine fuel. The regulation is performed by inspections of ships, ships log books, bunker samples, bunker documentation and, if necessary, sampling of bunker fueli. The above requirements for emissions apply to all vessels except those ships where an approved equivalent means of compliance is fitted and in use on-board. Typically, these ships would be fitted with an Exhaust Gas Cleaning System (EGCS / Scrubber). The EGCS enables ships to burn fuel of higher sulphur content but to effectively have the flue gas washed to attain the required air emission limits. In relation to EGCS, Dublin Port Company has prohibited the use of open-loop scrubbers within the DPC jurisdiction as per Notice to Mariners 21 of 2019 (appended to this statement)ii. This action prevents the discharge of exhaust gas scrubber wash water to the waters of Dublin Port. The enforcement of this prohibition is carried out by Officers of the Marine Survey Office (DTTAS) during MARPOL and Port State Control inspections.
In addition to the above emission requirements, Dublin Port Company has received expressions of interest from two of the ferry companies that will utilise these berths towards what is known as Shore Side Electricity or Cold Ironing . This is a process where the ship can plug in to the shore electricity supply in order that the ship can then shut down its onboard generators so as there will be no emissions from the vessel. Dublin Port will design and build the infrastructure necessary at Berth 52 & 53 to enable ships to plug-in and use such a facility. This application includes the infrastructure for plugging ships into shore-side electricity.
Page 6 of 14 4.2 Issue #2 – Issue re fuel, chemical or equipment oil leaks from vehicles or ships in Dublin Bay.
Submission from Mr. Peadar Buckley states A present if ships, vehicles or equipment leak oil, fuels or chemicals in Dublin Port, this would occur in a confined or relatively enclosed area. Any such leak or accident in future which occurs on or near the open jetty at Berth 53 will be in the open port and the westerly winds may wash it onto the bay a ea
4.2.2 Response: Dublin Port Company holds approval from the Irish Coast Guard for its Oil & HNS Spill Contingency Plan in relation to the Sea Pollution (Amendment) Act 1999, as amended. Within DPC contingency plans are risk assessments and control measures to prevent against any release of oil or HNS and a response plan to deal with a release. Similarly, each commercial vessel trading to Dublin Port is required by its Flag Administration to have an approved Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP). Dublin Port maintains a stock of pollution prevention equipment and due to the nature of the port operations there is a fleet of craft manned by personnel 24/7/365 capable of applying such resources. To ensure an effective response Dublin Port engages in training and exercising of such responses twice annually.
4.2.3 Commercial vessels that visit Dublin Port are required to meet with the MARPOL Convention of the IMO to maintain detailed records of oil transfers within their engine rooms and cargo tanks. Overboard valves for ballast are maintained in separate systems to those of oil with strict and robust procedures to prevent any accidental loss of oil from the vessel to the environment. The records attached to such oil transfers also fall under the inspection regime of Port State Control Officers of the MSO.
4.3 Issue #3 – Depth of berth pockets in relation to channel depth.
Submission from Mr. Peadar Farrell, I note berths with depths of 10m, 11m and 13m. I also know that the Fairway (13km long rod/route) excavated in to the floor of Dublin Bay is just 10 meters deep.
4.3.1 Response: Dublin Port Company is in the process of dredging the channel to a depth of -10m below Chart Datum. The rise and fall of tide twice daily will allow for vessels of a draft up to 12.4m to enter the channel and dock on berth pockets of up to 13m deep. This use of the tide to allow deeper vessels to access the Port is commonplace in Ports and allows a greater efficiency than the design depth of the channel (-10m) would indicate.
Page 7 of 14
4.4 Issue #4 - Turning and manoeuvring of large ships (240m).
Submission from Peadar Farrell T ning, manoeuvring and risk to other Liffey users of these giants in the Po .
4.4.1 Response: As set out in some detail above, Dublin Port has carried out extensive ship simulator modelling of the manoeuvring of vessels up to 240m in the space outlined by the MP2 project. Currently vessels up to 211m manoeuvre in this area. The modelling which has been conducted demonstrates that vessels of up to 240m in length can be managed safely during turns and while exposed to the prevailing wind and tide conditions that Dublin Port experiences. The success and safety of the manoeuvres as with every manoeuvre carried out at Dublin Port, is contingent upon the vessel having the required power and manoeuvring systems in order to maintain the vessel in the required position whilst carrying out the turn. Additional to the power and manoeuvring systems of the RORO or container ship is the availability of powerful harbour tugs at Dublin Port. These harbour tugs are used on a daily basis to add to the manoeuvring system of a vessel such that the Master / Pilot can apply adequate force in the required direction promptly and safely.
4.4.2 Additional to the space available at the ferry berths adjacent to the MP2 area, it is also possible for vessels to utilize the turning are at the entrance to the Alexandra Basin West if for any reason a vessels Master needed to have a larger turning tolerance. This turning area at Alexandra Basin West is currently used to turn vessels up to 300m in length.
4.5 Issue #5 - Concerns over the impact of ships wash on the integrity of the Great South Wall (GSW).
Submission from Dublin City Council
4.5.1 Response: Dublin Port currently experiences over 17,000 ship movements per year. To safely manage the movement of these ships, the safe mooring of other ships, the persons using the Great South Wall and the integrity of the GSW a set of speed limits
Page 8 of 14 is enforced by the Harbour Master s office. Details of the speed limits are contained with Notice to Mariners. No. 4 of 2019 (appended to this statement)iii. Notices to Mariners are re-issued each year on the 1st January. Ships navigating in the section of channel adjacent to the GSW are restricted to 9 knots (17 km/hr).The effect of this speed limit is that ships while travelling at this speed create only a small wash or wake. The Notice to Mariners specifically draws attention as follows: “9 Knots – All Vessels on the River Liffey west of the Breakwaters to the Port Operations Centre. Particular attention is drawn to the effect of wake wash along the Great South Wall.“ The purpose of this comment is to draw attention to the Master of a vessel as to the reason for the speed limit and the fact that a vessel is not obliged to travel at 9 knots, more importantly to pay attention to the effect of wave wash.
4.6 Issue #6 Concerns over infilling of Oil Berth No. 4
Submission from Mr. Peadar Buckley: Dublin Port should be refused permission for the infill of Berth 4 because of the possible future needs of Dublin Port and because all berths are a strategic asset in the port area. Dublin Port has been filling in berths in the Port area for many years and if they are allowed to continue doing this their demand for more berths may continue further out into the bay.
4.6.1 Response: Oil Berth No.4 has a very low utilisation level of shipping. To date in 2019 6 small sized ships have discharged cargo at the berth. During the 2018, 2017 & 2016 the respective ship numbers were 8, 7 & 6 vessels.
4.7 Issue #7 Boating Area in respect of Berth 53.
Submission from Mr. Peadar Buckley: This will reduce the sailing and boating area between the Bull Wall and the north docks for boats and leisure c af
4.7.1 Response: The proposed location for Berth 53 does not encroach into the Tolka Estuary. For this reason the proposed berth will not impact on existing sailing markers and will not impact on the safe navigation of leisure craft moving between the Tolka Estuary and the main navigation channel.
4.8 Issue #8 Project Timescale.
Submission from Mr. Peadar Farrell: The timescale of this project on the enclosed chart is really disturbing. The works in the application are scheduled to be completed in 2032. It would be grossly unfair to grant permission for such a duration. There are kids yet to be born who could be affected by this permission and they would have no redress in 2032.
Page 9 of 14 4.8.1 Response: Dublin Port Company is applying for planning permission of 15 year duration for the MP2 project. The project timescale has been assessed in the EIAR and has also been discussed by witnesses Eamonn O Reill and Helena Gavin. It is essential that the Port is developed while continuing to facilitate the current and future cargo volumes. Safety of operations is the most important function in managing cargo flow whereby the safety of arriving and departing passenger and cargo ships is managed in accordance with required standards and separation of marine operations. In order to maintain these safety standards and balance the environmental considerations within the sphere of complexities that such a construction project brings; Dublin Port has carefully prepared the MP2 project timeline so as to set achievable targets with regard to construction and port operations. The timeline of this planning application has been considered against the backdrop of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment (ABR) Project, which is in its latter years and which develops areas at both the eastern and western areas of the Port. Whilst the timeline is carefully planned it is a fact that projects sometimes come up against challenges and delays.
4.8.2 By way of example of the difficulties which can arise is in relation to the licencing of the dredging and foreshore works, we have received further guidance from the EPA and the Foreshore section in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government that applications are now to run consecutively with this application, as opposed to concurrently which was the previous guidance, as set out in a letter submitted within the EIAR. In addition, without looking too deeply into some of the individual parts of the project but to provide some context, the marine phases M1 & M2 (Berth 52 & 53) may be affected by further increases in ferry routes from Dublin to Continental Europe as we have seen growth in this area with the introduction by Irish Ferries of the W.B. Yeats and the provision of a year round service from Dublin to Cherbourg. Additionally, the dredging elements of the project are seasonal for environmental reasons, and a delay in licencing or operational performance would result in a delay until the next appropriate season.
4.8.3 Bearing all this in mind, in the context of the aforementioned safety management of port operations, the construction phases will all be occurring during the arrival and departure of an increasing number of larger passenger and cargo vessels. The safe management of these shipping movements is achieved through a suite of bye-laws, notices to mariners, procedures and risk assessments administered and enforced by the Harbour Ma e office through skilled teams of ships pilots,
Page 10 of 14 vessel traffic services (similar to air traffic control), tug captains, berth allocation planners and marine operatives all of whom perform safety critical roles respectively. This occurs within the dynamic marine environment of the Port dealing with weather and various operational challenges. The Harbour Master is required to control and manage the safety of marine operations not only in line with the risk appetite of Dublin Port Company but in accordance with the Harbours Act 1996 (as amended). It is these safety standards along with the environmental considerations that have driven the MP2 project timeline which ensures there would not be an unsafe overlap of construction projects that would negatively impact the safety of marine operations at Dublin Port. It is for these reasons that our application is for a fifteen year period.
5 Conclusion
5.1 The navigation studies as described in Appendix 4 of the EIAR have resulted in a proposed berth layout that does not impinge upon the SPA to the north of the channel. To the south of existing Berth 49, modified Berth 52 and proposed Berth 53 there is sufficient navigation space to safely turn ferries of up to 240m in length. The control of marine operations within Dublin Port via standard operating procedures that are promulgated via Notices to Mariners will still apply whereby the Harbour Master will approve ship manoeuvres taking into account vessel capability, available space, wind and tide. When required the Harbour Master will apply towage to assist vessels as is the current practice. Additionally there is turning space for vessels at the entrance to the Alexandra Basin West. This space can be used to turn container ships and Ro-Ro ships of 240m with ample space tolerance.
Page 11 of 14 Appendix 1 – DPC Notice to Mariners No. 21 of 2019
Page 12 of 14 Appendix 2 DPC Notice to Mariners No. 4 of 2019.
Page 13 of 14
i https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/36670/e9ae19b647e24110b57e40191c2f07b1.pdf#page=1 ii https://www.dublinport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/21-2019-Discharge-of-Exhaust-Gas-Scrubber- Wash-Water.pdf iii https://www.dublinport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/04-2019-Speed-Limits.pdf
Page 14 of 14 AN BORD PLEANÁALA REF. NO. ABP-304888-19
STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
15-YEAR PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT AT OIL BERTH 3 AND OIL BERTH 4, EASTERN OIL JETTY AND AT BERTHS 50A, 50N 50S, 51 51A, 49, 52, 53 AND ASSOCIATED TERMINAL YARDS TO PROVIDE FOR VARIOUS ELEMENTS INCLUDING NEW RO-RO JETTY AND CONSOLIDATION OF PASSENGER TERMINAL BUILDINGS
OUTLINE LEGAL SUBMISSIONS
A. GENERAL
1. These legal submissions have been prepared on behalf of Dublin Port Company in respect of the application for permission made by Dublin Port Company to An Bord Pleanála on 11 July 2019, under section 37E of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended (“the 2000 Act”), in respect of the MP2 Project. Certain of the submissions and observations made to An Bord Pleanála on the application for permission raise issues of a legal nature. These written submissions address the principal issues of law which arise for consideration by the Board on the application for permission.
2. In deciding whether to grant planning permission, pursuant to section 37G(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, the Board may consider any relevant information before it or any other matter which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts, the Board is required to have regard. Specifically, but without prejudice to the generality of section 37G(1), the Board is required by section 37G(2) to consider a number of matters including:
• the Environmental Impact Assessment Report [EIAR] and Natura Impact Statement [NIS] and any submissions or observations made to the Board (including the report submitted by the planning authority); • the provisions of the development plan for the area; • the fact that the proposed development would have an effect on a European site; and • the policies and objectives of the Government, State authority, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, planning authorities, any other body which is a public authority, the national interest, effect on issues of strategic economic or social importance to the State, the National Planning Framework and regional spatial and economic strategy.
1
• B. PROPER PLANNING & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
3. The substantive consideration for the Board in adjudicating on the application for permission is “the proper planning and sustainable development of the area”. Specifically, subsection 3 G(1) requires the Board to consider “the likely consequences of the proposed development for proper planning and sustainable development in the area in which it is proposed to situate the development”.
Proper Planning
4. In terms of the principles of proper planning, the MP2 Project complies with, and implements, a number of policies and objectives set at European Union, national, regional and local level.
5. At the EU level, the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy addresses the implementation and development of a Europe-wide network of railway lines, roads, inland waterways, maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and railroad terminals. The current TEN-T policy is based on Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013.1 TEN-T comprises two network “layers”: (a) core network includes the most important connections; and (b) comprehensive network covers all European regions.
6. Pursuant to Article 41 of, and Annex II to, Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013, Dublin Port is designated as: (a) an urban node of the core network; and (ii) a core maritime port.
7. In considering the application for permission submitted in relation to the MP2 Project, pursuant to sections 37G(2) and 143 of the 2000 Act, the Board is required to have regard to the policies and objectives for the time being of the Government, the national interest and any effect the performance of the Board’s functions may have on issues of strategic economic or social importance to the State. In addition, in terms of national policy, the Board is required to have regard to the National Planning Framework.
1 Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013, on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU Text with EEA relevance, sets out a list of nine core network corridors. Those corridors facilitate the coordinated implementation of the core network and contribute to the cohesion of the core network through improved territorial cooperation, address wider transport policy objectives and facilitate interoperability, modal integration and multimodal operations. The United Kingdom is part of the North Sea — Mediterranean Core Network Corridor, which includes links between Belfast, Dublin and Cork on the island of Ireland, and links in Great Britain from Glasgow and Edinburgh in the North to Folkestone and Dover in the South. In view of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, the parts of the alignment of the North Sea — Mediterranean Core Network Corridor related to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's sections and nodes will become obsolete and will no longer produce legal effects. Accordingly, Regulation (EU) 2019/495 amending Regulation (EU) 1316/2013, provides for a realignment of the North Sea — Mediterranean Core Network Corridor, so as to ensure maritime connections between Ireland and the other EU countries on the North Sea Core Network Corridor and to ensure clarity and certainty for infrastructure planning.
2
8. Against this statutory backdrop, it is submitted that the Board should have regard, in particular, to the relevant policies and objectives of the National Ports Policy 2013 [NPP] and the National Planning Framework [NPF]. In this respect, it is noteworthy that, as set out in the NPP, Dublin Port is a Port of National Significance (Tier 1) and that specific reference is made in the NPP to the Dublin Port Masterplan:
“the Government endorses the core principles underpinning the company’s Masterplan and the continued commercial development of Dublin Port Company is a key strategic objective of National Ports Policy”; and “the provision of adequate and efficient capacity into the future is a crucial Government strategic objective”.
9. Moreover, Project Ireland 2040 National Planning Framework (NPF):
acknowledges the NPP and the national ports hierarchy; recognises that the long-term international trend in ports and shipping is towards increased consolidation of resources in order to achieve optimum efficiencies of scale (which has knock-on effects in terms of vessel size and depths of water required at ports); and a key objective of the NPF, to enable growth of Dublin and nationally, is infrastructure pertaining to Dublin Port and looks towards “facilitating the growth of Dublin Port through greater efficiency, limited expansion into Dublin Harbour…”.
10. In addition, in circumstances where the Board is required to have regard to the policies and objectives of a public authority, it should be observed that the Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area, 2016-2035 has been prepared and published by the National Transport Authority in accordance with section 12 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 and has been approved by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in accordance with the relevant legislation. The Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area sets out the manner in which transport will be developed across the region, covering Dublin, Meath, Wicklow and Kildare, over the period of the strategy. The Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area seeks to protect and enhance the capacity of the TEN-T network including Dublin Port. The importance of Dublin Port at a regional and national level is recognised within the strategy and the need for landside connectivity is prioritised. The strategy states that:
“the need to facilitate the expansion of activity at Dublin Port into the future, as both a commercial and passenger port, must, therefore, be supported by the Strategy, through the clear identification and safeguarding of designated access routes”.
11. Moreover, in considering the application for permission, the Board is required to have regard to the regional spatial and economic strategy. In this respect, it is noted that, on 28 June 2019, the members of the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly [EMRA], which includes Dublin City Council, agreed to make the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy [RSES] 2019–2031.
3
12. Relevant regional policy objectives in relation to the development of ports and, specifically, Dublin Port, within the RSES include RPO 8.21, which states: “The EMRA will support the role of Dublin Port as a Port of National Significance (Tier 1 Port) and its continued commercial development, including limited expansion…”
13. In addition, the RSES provides the Metropolitan Area Spatial Plan [MASP], which identifies guiding principles for the sustainable development of the Dublin Metropolitan Area, including to support and facilitate the continued growth of Dublin Port.
14. Finally, in this context, the Dublin City Development Plan 2016–2022, which is a mandatory consideration for the Board pursuant to section 37G(2), states that: Dublin City Council fully supports and recognises the important national and regional role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the region and the consequent need in economic competitiveness and employment terms to facilitate port activities; Dublin Port will have a significant role to play in the future development and growth of the city and it is considered prudent to plan the structure of this part of the city, including the proposed public transport network, to fully integrate with the developing new city structure and character, while having regard to the Dublin Port Company Masterplan 2012–2040.
15. In addition to this high level support the Development Plan contains a number of policies and objectives facilitating Dublin Port operations and activities.
Sustainable Development
16. The principle of sustainable development is referred to in a number of key provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000. For example, the long title to the 2000 Act states that the Act aims, inter alia, “to provide, in the interests of the common good, for proper planning and sustainable development.” Moreover, sustainable development is a fundamental principle of EU environmental law and, accordingly, sustainable development now has a significant impact on the presentation of environmental policy and law in Ireland.
17. The relationship between sustainable development and the “need” for a development is a material consideration and it is very much a matter of planning judgement as to whether the proposed development is needed and would be worthwhile. In this context, as appears from the application documentation, the rationale or need for the MP2 Project has been clearly established. In order to meet the forecasted demand within the period of the Dublin Port Masterplan, DPC needs to: • provide deeper berths to cater for larger vessels; • reconfigure existing quays and berths to cater for longer vessels including the demolition of parts of the quays; • provide new improved quayside infrastructure; • reconfigure landside storage areas and provide some additional areas to cater for increases in the volume of unitised cargo.
4
Duration of Permission
18. Pursuant to section 41(1) of the 2000 Act, in deciding to grant a permission under, inter alia, section 37G, the Board may:
having regard to the nature and extent of the relevant development and any other material consideration, specify the period during which the permission is to have effect, being a period— (a) in the case of all development requiring permission, of not less than 2 years, and (b) in the case of residential development requiring permission, of not more than 10 years, and where the planning authority or the Board exercises, or refuses to exercise, the power conferred on it by this section, the exercise or refusal shall be regarded as forming part of the relevant decision of the authority or the Board under section… 37G…
19. Thus, as a matter of law, the Board is empowered to grant permission for a period of 15-years, as sought by the application for permission in respect of the MP2 Project. Significantly, the maximum period limit of ten years applies only to residential development requiring permission and not otherwise. The minimum period limitation – of two years – applies to all development requiring permission.
20. As in every case in which the Board considers the period of duration for any permission granted, the principal factor is the nature and extent of the development for which permission is sought. In this context, the Board is referred to the application documentation, including the public notices and the planning report, which clearly identify the nature and location of the proposed development (as required under section 37E(3) of the 2000 Act) but which also describe, in some considerable detail, the full extent of the MP2 Project for which development consent is sought.
21. In summary, the proposed development seeks to provide for the following at Dublin Port: new Ro-Ro jetty (Berth 53) for ferries up to 240m in length on an alignment north of the port’s fairway and south and parallel to the boundary of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) (004024). reorientation of Berth 52 previously permitted under An Bord Pleanála ref. no. PL29N.PA0034; lengthening of an existing river berth (50A) to provide the Container Freight Terminal with additional capacity to handle larger container ships. These works will include the infilling of the basin east of the now virtually redundant Oil Berth 4 on the Eastern Oil Jetty;
5
redevelopment and future-proofing of Oil Berth 3 as a future deep water container berth for the Container Freight Terminal. The future-proofing will facilitate the change of use of the berth from petroleum importation to container handling when the throughput of petroleum products through Dublin Port declines as a result of national policies to decarbonise the economy; and Consolidation of passenger terminal buildings, demolition of redundant structures and buildings, removal of connecting roads and reorganisation of access roads to increase the area of land for the transit storage of Ro-Ro freight units. 24.
22. As clearly identified in the application documentation,2 as Dublin Port is an operational port, the sequencing of the phases will, in the majority of instances. be undertaken sequentially rather than consecutively. Accordingly, the objective of the construction programme – and, in particular the marine-side construction programme – is to enable Dublin Port to continue to operate at optimum levels while also causing the minimum disruption to port operators and adjoining land uses.
23. Moreover, as is set out in the planning report, based on its experience with respect to the ongoing implementation of the permitted ABR Project, there will be gaps between each work package and phase to allow for other consents to be secured (e.g. foreshore licence), design development, procurement, compliance agreements. Accordingly, in all the circumstances and, having regard to navigational safety – which, in this context, is a “material consideration” pursuant to section 41(1) – a permission of 15-years duration is being sought by the applicant.
24. Having exercised its statutory discretion pursuant to section 41(1), as a matter of law, An Bord Pleanála is entitled to grant permission for a 15-year period.
2 See, for example, para.34 of the Planning Report.
6
C. EUROPEAN UNION LAW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
Obligation to Implement EU Law
25. There is an over-arching obligation placed on the Board, pursuant to its status as an emanation of the State, to ensure that the effective implementation of Ireland’s obligations including, in particular,: (i) the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive; (ii) Stage One Screening and Stage Two Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive; and (iii) EU Ambient Directive 2008/50/EC. A number of other legal provisions are referenced in the submissions and observations, which do not warrant detailed analysis in these legal submissions, but which have been considered in the documentation submitted on the application.3
Environmental Impact Assessment
26. It is submitted that the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] to be carried out by An Bord Pleanála is that required by the provisions of Directive 2014/52/EU, in circumstances where the initiation of the consent process commenced after the transposition date of the 2014 Directive (i.e. 16 May 2017). Moreover, in circumstances where the application for permission was submitted on 11 July 2019, the provisions of Part X of the 2000 Act, as amended by European Union (Planning and Development) (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2018 [S.I. No. 296 of 2018] apply to the Board’s consideration of the application, including the adequacy of the EIAR submitted and the EIA to be conducted by the Board.
27. Section 172 of the 2000 Act, as amended, provides that, before making a decision in respect of a proposed development the subject of a planning application, the Board is required to consider the EIAR submitted. Article 5 of the 2014 EIA Directive requires Member States to ensure that, where an environmental impact assessment is required, the developer shall prepare and submit an environmental impact assessment report. In this regard, Article 5(1) requires that the information to be provided by the developer, which provisions are now mirrored in section 172 and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended.
28. In any event, it is the position of the applicant that the EIAR submitted with the application for permission is much more than adequate, as it is comprehensive and complies fully with the requirements of EU and Irish law.
29. In addition, pursuant to the provisions of section 172(1G), in carrying out an environmental impact assessment, the Board shall consider, inter alia: • the EIAR; and • submissions or observations validly made in relation to the environmental effects of the proposed development.
3 See for example, the European Union (Sulphur Content of Marine Fuels) Regulations 2015 [S.I No. 361 of 2015] and Sea Pollution (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2010 [S.I No. 313 of 2010].
7
30. Subsection 172(1GA) now provides that the Board shall coordinate an environmental impact assessment and an appropriate assessment where both assessments are required and the assessments are to be carried out simultaneously in respect of the same development.
Land 31. In its letter dated 27 November 2019, the Board requested that Dublin Port Company address the potential impacts of the proposed development on the environmental criterion of “land” in accordance with Section 171A(b)(i) of the 2000 Act.
32. In this context, it should be noted that ”land” is defined in Section 2 of the 2000 Act as including “any structure and any land covered with water (whether inland or coastal)”. As set out in the application documentation and witness statements provided at the oral hearing, the potential impacts on land arising from the proposed development, including land-take, have been appraised in the EIAR.
33. In this respect, Article 3 of Directive 2014/52/EU provides:
“The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors: […] c) land, soil, water, air and climate”
34. Furthermore, the preamble of the Directive 2014/52/EU at Recital (9) states:
“The Commission Communication of 22 September 2006 entitled ‘Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection’ and the Roadmap to a Resource-Efficient Europe underline the importance of the sustainable use of soil and the need to address the unsustainable increase of settlement areas over time (‘land take’). Furthermore, the final document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro on 20-22 June 2012 recognises the economic and social significance of good land management, including soil, and the need for urgent action to reverse land degradation. Public and private projects should therefore consider and limit their impact on land, particularly as regards land take, and on soil, including as regards organic matter, erosion, compaction and sealing; appropriate land use plans and policies at national, regional and local level are also relevant in this regard.”
35. Annex IV to the 2014 Directive sets out the information to be provided in an EIAR, and it provides the following in relation to “land” and “land-use”:
8
1. Description of the project, including in particular: (b) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project, including, where relevant, requisite demolition works, and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases; (c) a description of the main characteristics of the operational phase of the project (in particular any production process), for instance, energy demand and energy used, nature and quantity of the materials and natural resources (including water, land, soil and biodiversity) used; […] 4. A description of the factors specified in Article 3(1) likely to be significantly affected by the project: population, human health, biodiversity (for example fauna and flora), land (for example land take), soil (for example organic matter, erosion, compaction, sealing), water (for example hydromorphological changes, quantity and quality), air, climate (for example greenhouse gas emissions, impacts relevant to adaptation), material assets, cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological aspects, and landscape.’ 5. ‘A description of the likely significant effects of the project on the environment resulting from, inter alia: b) the use of natural resources, in particular land, soil, water and biodiversity, considering as far as possible the sustainable availability of these resources; The description of the likely significant effects on the [environmental] factors should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, transboundary, short-term, medium-term and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project.
36. Almost identical provisions are set out in section 171A of the 2000 Act and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended (“the 2001 Regulations”).
37. Moreover, it should be noted that European Commission’s Guidance on the preparation of the EIAR (2017), at section 1.3.5 under the heading, “Legislative requirements and key consideration on use of natural resources” states:
“Annex IV (1) and (5) requires the Developer to assess the use of natural resources and the impacts of the Project resulting from their use/depletion. In this context, the Directive requires the assessment to consider the sustainability of resources as far as possible, in particular land, soil, water, and biodiversity, as well as energy. The requirement for the assessment of a Project’s impacts on the availability of natural resources is additional to the requirement to assess the impact on the resources — and a slightly different emphasis needs to be taken into account by Developers and practitioners. This emphasis reflects a shift in environmental policy focus from one of protecting natural resources — through assessing and mitigating impacts — to one of preserving the availability of natural resources for human activity. In this sense, assessments should also focus on the efficiency of resource use; can Projects do more with less in terms of energy use, water intake, land and soil use, etc.”
9
38. The draft Guidelines on the information to be contained in an EIAR (2017) published by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] state (at page 29), under the heading “Population and Human Health”:
“The legislation does not generally require assessment of land-use planning, demographic issues or detailed socio-economic analysis. Coverage of these can be provided in a separate Planning Application Report to accompany an application for planning permission. This should be avoided in an EIAR, unless issues such as economic or settlement patterns give rise directly to specific new developments and associated effects (ref. section 3.5.7). These need to be readily identifiable at specific locations in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The main purpose of such identification and assessment is to provide the CA with a context for their determination. (Examples would include future warehousing beside a new port; transmission lines in the vicinity of a new electrical sub-station or commercial developments beside a junction on zoned land beside a new road.)”
39. Under the heading “Land and Soils”, the EPA draft Guidelines reference (at page 31):
“Land (for example land take)” 64
Footnote 64 states: Removal of productive land from potential agricultural or other beneficial uses.
“Land The amended Directive introduces Land as a prescribed environmental factor. Recital 9 gives context to this addition, showing that it relates to the issue of ‘land take’. This change aligns the Directive with proceedings of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio de Janeiro, 2012) and with Commission strategy.”
40. At page 32, under the heading Material Assets, the draft EPA Guidelines state:
“The meaning of this factor is less clear than others. In Directive 2011/ 2/EU it included architectural and archaeological heritage. Directive 2014/52/EU includes those heritage aspects as components of cultural heritage. Material assets can now be taken to mean built services and infrastructure. Traffic is included because in effect traffic consumes roads infrastructure. Sealing of agricultural land and effects on mining or quarrying potential come under the factors of land and soils.”
41. Moreover, under the heading Describing the Proposed Project, at page 34, it is stated that one of the issues to be considered is: • the physical characteristics of the whole project, including, where relevant, demolition works, the land-use requirements during construction and operation as well as other works that are integral to the project
10
• the main characteristics of the operational phase of the project (production and maintenance processes in particular), for example energy demand, energy used, nature and quantity of materials and natural resources (including water, land, soil, biodiversity, etc.,) used
42. Finally, at page 4, the following definition of “land-use” is provided:
“The human activities which take place within a given area of space.”
43. It is submitted that, as is evident from the EIAR, the assessments comprised in the EIAR and the clarification provided in the witness statement of Dr. Alan Barr, that the statutory criteria outlined in the EIA Directive, 2000 Act and 2001 Regulations have been complied with in full.
Cumulative Impact Assessment 44. In the context of the assessment required under Article 3 of the EIA Directive and section 172 of the 2000 Act, the Board will also have to take into account the cumulative effect of the proposed project with other projects and plans in respect of which in combination effects arise. These cumulative impacts have been considered in the EIAR under the headings relating to the different environmental issues.
45. Annex IV of Directive 2014/52/EU (and similarly Schedule 6 to the 2001 Regulations) requires an EIAR to contain:
A description of the likely significant effects of the project on the environment resulting from, inter alia: (e) the cumulation of effects with other existing and/or approved projects, taking into account any existing environmental problems relating to areas of particular environmental importance likely to be affected or the use of natural resources;
46. The European Commission Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (1999), which is referred to in the draft EPA Guidelines on the information to be contained in an EIAR (2017), states:
“Cumulative Impacts Impacts that result from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the project. For example: • incremental noise from a number of separate developments; • combined effect of individual impacts, e.g. noise, dust and visual, from one development on a particular receptor; • Several developments with insignificant impacts individually but which together have a cumulative effect, e.g. development of golf course may have an insignificant impact, but when considered with several nearby golf courses there could be significant cumulative impact on local ecology and landscape.”
11
47. In this context, An Bord Pleanála is required to assess those plans or projects which are permitted or proposed. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the contention made in certain submissions and observations that certain plans or projects should be assessed,4 it is evident that the statutory requirements in respect of cumulative assessment have been fully satisfied.
Project Splitting 48. Both the CJEU (see, for example, Case C-142/07 Ecologistas en Accion-CODA) and the Irish courts (for example, Ó Grianna v. An Bord Pleanála [2014] I.E.H.C. 632) have made it clear that the whole of a project should be considered.
49. Accordingly, the draft EPA Guidelines state:
“ “Dividing the project into separate parts so that each part is below an applicable threshold needs to be avoided. This is project-splitting and is not compliant with the Directive.”
50. Notwithstanding certain submissions5 made to the contrary, the MP2 project is a separate and distinct project to the other projects within the Port Estate, such as the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment [ABR] Project, which form projects within the overall Dublin Port Masterplan. The Dublin Port Masterplan 2012-2040, amended in 2018, was the subject of a Strategic Environmental Assessment, carried out in accordance with the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC. The MP2 project is the second major project which has been brought forward under the Masterplan. However, it is a standalone and distinct project and is not dependent or reliant on the completion of other projects within the Masterplan.
Public Consultation 51. Pursuant to section 37E(3)(a), an applicant for permission is required to publish a newspaper notice specifying the times and places at which, and the period (not being less than six weeks) during which, a copy of the application documentation may be inspected or purchased on payment and inviting the making, during such period, of submissions and observations to the Board. In fact, there were two separate periods of statutory consultation in relation to the MP2 Project in circumstances where it came to the attention of Dublin Port Company that two appendices to the EIAR (Appendix 8-1 – Preliminary Risk Assessment and Appendix 8-2 – Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment) were inadvertently omitted from the documentation submitted in electronic format to the Board and uploaded to the project application website.
4 See for example the submission made by Dublin City Council, wherein it is stated that DCC Parks & Landscapes Services Division acknowledges that DPC has reviewed the cumulative impacts of several projects concerning the relevant Natura 2000 sites. However, the impacts of the various sub-projects under the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan should also be considered with regard to potential impacts on protected species and habitats. 5 See for example the submission made by Peadar Farrell. 12
52. Accordingly, in addition to the original period of consultation of seven weeks, a further public notice was published outlining the nature of this omission and allowing a period of five weeks for submissions/observations to be made.
53. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the contention made in certain submissions and observations that the public consultation engaged in was inadequate,6 it is evident that the statutory requirements in respect of public consultation were met and exceeded.
54. Moreover, all obligations to consult with the public and public concerned for the purposes of the EIA and Habitats Directives and also Parts X and Part XAB of the 2000 Act – which set out the requirements in respect of public consultation in the context of EIA and Appropriate Assessment – have been satisfied.7
Habitats Directive Assessments
55. Natural habitats are protected by virtue of the provisions of Directive 92/43/EC [the Habitats Directive]. As far as the application for permission before the Board is concerned, the key requirements of the Habitats Directive are contained in Article 6.
56. Article 6(3) requires Member States to subject “any plan or project” likely to have significant effects on a designated site to “an appropriate assessment” of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In Case–127/02, the European Court of Justice held that an “appropriate assessment” means “all the aspects of the plan or project which could affect the site’s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field” and in assessing the potential effects of a plan or project, its significance must be established in the light of, inter alia, “the characteristics and specific environmental conditions of the site concerned by that plan or project.” Under Article 6(3), plans and projects which could significantly adversely affect the integrity of a site may not be permitted.
57. Indeed, in Case C 258/11 Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála, the CJEU held that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a project will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the constitutive characteristics of the site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the designation of the site. In Kelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2014] I.E.H.C. 400, the High Court comprehensively set out the requirements for appropriate assessment.
58. The possibility of there being a significant effect on a European site will generate the need for an AA to be carried out by the competent authority for the purposes of Article 6(3).
59. Accordingly, a Stage One Screening for AA in respect of an application for consent for proposed development must be carried out by the competent authority (in this case,
6 See, for example, submission made on behalf of Hollybrook Grove Householders Association. 7 See, for example, section 2.4 of the Planning Report. 13
An Bord Pleanála) in order to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge, if the proposed development, individually or in combination with another plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on any European site. A Stage Two AA is required if it cannot be excluded, on the basis of objective information, that a proposed development, individually or in combination with other plans or projects, will have a significant effect on a European site. The Screening stage operates merely to determine whether a full AA must be undertaken on the implications of the plan or project for the conservation objectives of relevant European sites. At the screening stage, the competent authority is not entitled to consider mitigation measures: Case C-323/17 People Over Wind v. Coillte.
60. In terms of this planning application, Dublin Port Company submits that the Board, as competent authority, should consider and have regard to the Screening for Appropriate Assessment section of the Screening For Appropriate Assessment & Natura Impact Statement submitted with the application for permission in respect of the proposed development. Following screening, the Board is invited to conclude (as the developer’s AA Screening Report does) that, it is not possible to rule out significant adverse effects on certain European sites and, accordingly, the Board should proceed to conduct a Stage Two Appropriate Assessment in respect of those European sites.
61. In conducting the Stage Two Appropriate Assessment, the applicant further submits that the Board, as competent authority, should consider and have regard to the Natura Impact Statement [NIS] section of the Screening For Appropriate Assessment & Natura Impact Statement submitted with the application for permission in respect of the proposed development. Following the Stage Two Appropriate Assessment, the Board is invited to conclude (as demonstrated in the NIS) that, on the basis of the best scientific evidence, it can be clearly demonstrated that no elements of the project will result in any impact on the integrity or qualifying interests/special conservation interests of any relevant European site, either on their own or in-combination with other plans and projects, in light of their conservation objectives.
62. Thus, the Board is enabled to reach a determination that the proposed development will not affect the integrity of any relevant European site. In circumstances of such an Appropriate Assessment decision having bene made by the Board, the Board is entitled to grant the permission sought.
EU Ambient Directive 2008/50/EC
63. The obligations under the Air Ambient Directive 2008/50/EC are incorporated into Irish law pursuant to Air Quality Standards Regulations 2011 [S.I. No. 180 of 2011], which establishes limit values and, as appropriate, alert thresholds for concentrations of certain pollutants in ambient air intended to avoid, prevent or reduce harmful effects on human health and the environment as a whole, and provides for the assessment of concentrations of certain pollutants in ambient air.
14
64. However, it should be noted that Schedule 3 of the Regulations specifically provides that compliance with the limit values for the protection of human health do not apply at any location where members of the public do not have access, where there is no fixed habitation or at industrial installations.
65. In this context it is also necessary to consider the WHO Air Quality Guidelines which8 provide non-statutory guideline values in relation to certain pollutants of air quality (for example PM10 values). The key publication is the “WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, Global update 2005 Summary of risk assessment”.9 The WHO guidelines are based on reducing the risk to human health and, in some cases, the levels differ from the European Union legally enforceable limits. Accordingly, it should be noted that the WHO guidelines values are not legally binding, in contradistinction to the EU and Irish statutory regime, which provide the limits which must be adhered to as a matter of EU and Irish law.
8 See the submission made by Councillor Cooney. 9 The Guidelines state at page : “Role of the guidelines in protecting public health” “The WHO air quality guidelines (AQGs) are intended for worldwide use but have been developed to support actions to achieve air quality that protects public health in different contexts. Air quality standards, on the other hand, are set by each country to protect the public health of their citizens and as such are an important component of national risk management and environmental policies. National standards will vary according to the approach adopted for balancing health risks, technological feasibility, economic considerations and various other political and social factors, which in turn will depend on, among other things, the level of development and national capability in air quality management. The guideline values recommended by WHO acknowledge this heterogeneity and, in particular, recognize that when formulating policy targets, governments should consider their own local circumstances carefully before adopting the guidelines directly as legally based standards.” 15
D. PLANNING CONDITIONS
66. An Bord Pleanála is empowered to attach conditions to any permission granted in respect of the proposed development: subsections 37G(3) and 37G(7). This power to attach conditions is expressed in general terms in section 37G(7)(a) the 2000 Act. In the event that the Board decides to grant permission, however, the Board is restricted to a consideration of imposing conditions which relate to the lands comprised in the application for permission for the MP2 Project. Accordingly, notwithstanding the content of the report submitted to the Board by Dublin City Council, the Board does not have the power to attach any conditions to the lands which formed the subject- matter of the permitted Greenway development, other than those very limited lands which are comprised in both the Greenway permission lands and the proposed MP2 development lands.
67. The Greenway development is permitted under planning permission reg. ref. no. 3084/16 and comprises an enhanced landscaped and amenity route along the northern and eastern boundary of the port. The MP2 Project proposes minor alterations to the development already permitted, which alteration comprises the addition of hard and soft works along the eastern boundary of the site, to further enhance the public realm by creating a heritage zone into which an interpretative art installation, the ‘Marker’, will be inserted.
68. In Lanigan v. Barry [2016] I.E.S.C. 46 the Supreme Court held that a general condition, which imposes an obligation carry out the development in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted, can be interpreted in a way which imposes very specific obligations in the absence of a specific condition, if it can be considered that the drawings and specifications be clearly of a nature designed to identify specific and precisely enforceable parameters for the development. In this context, it should be noted that certain mitigation measures were proposed in the plans and particulars submitted with the Greenway application documentation (and, for example, included visual screening and landscape planting proposal). Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of a specific condition in the Greenway requiring the implementation of these specific measures, as set out in Lanigan v. Barry, the imposition of the “usual condition” means that these measures must be carried out. Condition No.1 states “…the development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans, particulars and specifications lodged with the application, save as may be required by the conditions attached hereto…”
69. Section 37G(7)(a) states that the Board can have regard to the matters specified in section 34(4) – which provision enables the Board to attach conditions “for regulating the development or use of any land which adjoins, abuts or is adjacent to the land to be developed”. However, in order to exercise that power to attach conditions regulating the development or use of adjoining, abutting or adjacent lands, such lands must be “in the control of the applicant” – a situation which does not arise in the context of the permitted Greenway development, which extends to approximately 4 kilometres, the vast majority of which lies outside the ownership and control of Dublin Port Company.
16
E. CONCLUSION
70. In all the circumstances as addressed in these submissions and given the material before the Board, Dublin Port Company submits that the Board should grant permission for a period of 15 years in respect of the proposed MP2 Project.
JARLATH FITZSIMONS S.C.
SINÉAD BELL B.L.
16 DECEMBER, 2019
17
Appendix 1: Submissions to An Bord Pleanála
1. Submissions to An Bord Pleanála i. An Bord Pleanála – Submissions ii. Dockland Business Forum iii. Donna Cooney - Green Party iv. Inland Fisheries Ireland v. Geological Survey Ireland vi. Irish Water vii. Birdwatch Ireland viii. Port of Cork ix. Hollybrook Grove Households Association x. Clontarf Residents Association xi. Peadar Farrell xii. Transport Infrastructure Ireland xiii. Irish Academy of Engineering xiv. Dublin City Council xv. Department of Culture Heritage and the Gaeltacht
, Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 An Bord Pleaniila-
Helena Gavin RPS Planning & Environment West Pier Business Campus Dun Laoghaire Co. Dublin
1 Date: 9 2 September 2019 I
Re: 95-year permission for development at Oil Bsrth 3 and Oil Oil Jetty and at Berths SOA, 50N, 50S, 51,51A, 49,a53 and assodated for various elements 1 including new Rc-Ro jetty end consolidation of Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay
1 Dear Sir / Madam, Enclosed for your information is a copy of eleven number ceived by the Board in refation to the above mentioned proposed development. I The following submissions are enclosed:
The Irish Academy of Engineering Clantarf Residents Association DocWands Business Forum Port of Cork Company Irish Water Inlahd Fisheries Ireland Birdwatch Ireland Donna Cooney Peadar Buckley Peadar Farrell Geolagical Survey Ireland
If yw have any queries in relation to the matter please contact Please quote the above mentioned An Bord Pleangla reference e- in any correspor~~ficeor tdephone contact with the Board. Teil Tel (Oj) 858 8100 Glao ktiol Local1 1890 275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 LBlthre4n GdasAln WebsIte www.pl8anala.l~ RIomhphcrst Email [email protected] Yours faithfully, 7.\\- Kieran Somers Executive Officer Direct Line: 01 -8737250 Teil Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao Aitlull locall 1890 275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 Uithrehn Or4adln Webb ww.plwnala.le Rlmhphost hall [email protected] Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 # ' An Bord Pleanhla Alan Robinson Docklands Business Forum Centre Block Docklands Innovation Park 128-1 30 East Wall Road Dublin 3 DO3 X316 Date: 10th September 2019 Re: t 5-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N, 50S, 51,51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Sir, An Bord Pleanhla has received your recent submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. A receipt for the fee lodged is enclosed. The Board will revert to you in due course with regard to the matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions I observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord Pleanala when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. Yours faithfully, Kieran Somers 4 Executive Officer Direct Line: 01-873 7250 Tell Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao ~ItiBll Local[ 1890 275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Sr4id.MaoRbhride 64 Marlborough Street Uithrean Greashin Website www.pleanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 Rlomhphost Ernail [email protected] DO1 V902 DO 1 V902 An Bord PleanBla, 64 Marlborough St, North City, Dublin 1, DO1 V902. RE: Oublin Port Company's MP2 Project Dear Sir or Madam, Please find endosed the Docklands Business Forum's observations on the Dublin Port Company's MP2 Project. Also enclosed is the €50 fee. CEO, Docklands Business Forum 086 8126379 Steering Commitlee: Accenture Brian Smflh A\B Jack Daly Aramark Michael FmlAspira Philip McGillycudd\l Bank of Ireland Catriona Maye Clayton Hotas Louise b'& B Cara McManamon Deloitte PJ McGrane Google Lauren Wdlsh Hibernia RElT Oan Boyd John YcElhinney & CO. Johnny McElhinnev Mail Boxes Etc. Michael Noel Harte Robed Calleran Pmpeny Consultants Robert Callwan Savvi Credit Union Laura ShiEnl~ Community Reps Betty Ashe & Joe McCann. CEO: Alan Roblnson The Docklands &sines Forum is a social mlsrprise and the bus~nessrepresentarwe associat~wlfor Docklands Wrking to ensure the area realrses its full potential by becom~nga wnrlrl centre fnr mtemaliml cmmerce. enlreorenajrial innwatinn ~ndrnant~me lor~rism Docklands Business Forum Joining up the Docks Docklaads Business Forumps Qbservation on Dublin Ports MB2 Project IiAN BORD PLEAHALA 0 6 SEP 2019 LTR DATED FROM LDG- IABP------..I Docklands Business Forum's Observation on ; 2019 Dublin Ports MP2 Project 1. introduction The Docklands Business Forum1 (DBF) is a social enterprise and the business association for the Dublin Docklands and is recognised as the primary business organisation by the Dublin Docklands Area Master plan2. With more than 100 member organisations, representing over 35,000 employees, the DBF is a key stakeholder in the Docklands' area. The purpose of the DBF is to ensure Docklands realises its full potential by becoming a world centre for international commerce, entrepreneurial innovation and maritime tourism. We offer businesses an opportunity to take part and contribute to a range of activities and initiatives furthering these goals while also using their participation to create valuable networks for their own enterprise. 2. Planning Context There is an important planning context to this application from the Dublin Port Company. The current Docklands Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) and the smaller Poolbeg SDZ will soon be, in the context of strategic development, built and the city left with few, if any, large areas of land to accommodate its growing population. The wider consequences for the citfs sustainability as an inviting urban centre for business and residents are ones we believe An Bord Pleanila need to consider. Dublin's Docklands is the country's most successful urban regeneration and its fasted growing urban area. Docklands is now producing 9% of Ireland's GDP and has created over 45,000 professionaljobs in what was until quite recently an urban wasteland. With containerisation the port activities moved east and have now been replaced by a colourful range of service exporters providing high paid jobs, over lOBN investment and little if any dependency on the heavy transport infrastructure needed by the Dublin Port Company. This new Services Port is, we believe, appropriate for such a city centre location. 3. Dublin Port's MP2 The Docklands Business Forum welcomes this opportunity to express a view on the Dublin Port Company's MP2 application. We regret, as the local business representative body, the Dublin Port Company did not reach out to us during the pre-application consultation process so we could have had an input at an earlier stage. Business has invested over 610 Billion in Dublin's Docklands regeneration and created over 45,000 jobs. We are surprised to find enterprises listed in the pre consultation document and all of those Dublin Port Company clients or utility providers with a presence business in the regenerated Docklands appears on the list thoug the total employment figure on the DPC campus, I 0 6 SEP 2019 I LTR DATED FROM www.docklandsbusinessforum.ie I !I * Policy ED13 Page 69 ILDG- I Docklands Business Forum's Observation on : 2019 Dublin Ports MP2 Project . . . .. The Docklands Business Forum has a number of concerns in relation to the application and has chosen to express them as questions most appropriately answered in a dialogue that an oral hearing in An Bord Plean5la would facilitate. Is it in the interests of Dublin that the Port, located in the city centre, doubles its capacity? It is the stated objective of Dublin City Council 'to promote residential development' and attract residents back into the city centre including farnilie~.~This objective seems incompatible with the strain on the urban infrastructure that the development will cause. The continued location of the port in the city centre is an unresolved issue for many and for some a controversial one.4 'In the past two decades Barcelona, Bremen, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Oslo, Bilbao, Buenos Aires, Genoa, London and Cape Town have all moved their polts and liberated the land to create beautiful new cities in which people can work, live and play.' It seems out of step of international best practice for a port so closely located in the city centre to not only refuse to seriously consider moving to a more appropriate location but to seek, as the Dublin Port Company does with this application, to double its capacity. Is it in the interests of the countryfor the Dublin Part Company to be facilitated In mahtaining its market dominance? The MP2 Application to An Bord Plean6la is in the Dublin Port Company's interest. It will protect the company's dominance in the export market. The DPC's share of national volumes in Ro-Ro2 is 88.7% and in Lo-Lo3 is 72.6%55The company dwarfs all it competitors combined. If a private company possessed such market power there would almost certainly be calls for it to be curtailed or broken up. Whether this dominance is in the interests of the city or the nation is an important question and one that needs to be urgently addressed. Is the current Port site still fitfor purpose? There is much evidence to suggest it is not. In 2016 the DPC needed to purchase 44 hectors of land in the west of the city to facilitate its ongoing activities. This is all the more surprising as DPC's leadership has insisted the company will not move its facilities from Dublin city centreO6 The DPC have had to cut cruise ship visits in half to facilitate the space needed as a result of an unpredicted growth in exports. This is particularly unfortunate as the DPC had themselves initiated and invested heavily in building this cruise a The DPC have acknowledged in their application that the Po capacity' of '77.2 million gross tons by 2040'. Even after an QH7 Dublin City Council Development Plan 2016-2022 0 6 SEP 2019 The lrish Times, David McWilliams, Dublin Part is a waste of space. Move MP2 Project - Planning Report Page 3 nt, 04/09/19 3 Docklands Business Forum's Observation on 2019 Dublin Ports MP2 Project - - - - payer money this major strategic infrastructure will have nowhere further to go in just twenty-one years? Will the heritage piece work? The Docklands Business Forum welcomes the heritage and community gain elements of the application. We ourselves as far back as 2013 published our policy document on the potential for tourism, particularly maritime based, in the areaagMany businesses have carried out extensive restorations of Docklands industrial heritage including the London and North Western Hotel on North Wall Quay, the CHQ Building on Custom House Quay, the Tropical Fruit Warehouse on Sir John Rogerson's Quay and the Victorian warehouse at Grand Canal Quay to name a few. We are concerned that such a heavy investment in the Heritage zone may not receive the footfall appropriate to success as a result of its location deep inside the working port campus. Epic -The Irish Emigration Museum has for long years struggled to realise the success it has achieved to date. And this attraction is located close to the traditional city centre, is on the Luas line and five minutes from the DART at Connelly Station. It is located in the beautifully restored CHQ Building and surrounded by bars, cafes and restaurants. It will be extremely difficult for the Dublin Port Company to attract footfall to facilities that have none of the above advantages. Examples the DPC have cited in the application are located more appropriately in populated areas and established recreation zones.1° By way of demonstration the cited examples of the Sea Wave Organ in San Francisco is located at the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a popular amenity in its own right and the Sea Organ in Zadar is located on the promenade adjacent to the centre of the town. Is there sufficient infrastructure outside the Dublin Port Company to deliver the increased capacity? The Port Tunnel has now reached a capacity that cannot be increased. Frequent delays are experienced by hauliers, in some cases up to six hours. This is not only a problem for those seeking entrance and exit from the Port but also for others needing to use the city's roads. There will be a significant negative impact on the surrounding road network caused by a doubling of capacity of the Dublin Port Company's city centre campus adversely affecting the lives of those that live and work in the area. Should the Dublin Port Company seek joint ventures with other Ports? As acknowledge by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport' capacity in other ports around the ~ountr/.~l MP2 Project- ElAR Non-Technical Summary Page 3 0 6 SEP 2019 http://bit.ly/2vHrnaY lo MP2 Project, Industrial Heritage Impacts & Compensation Planning 81De fi National Ports Policy, Department of Transport Tourism & Sport 4 Docklands Business Forum's Observation on 20 19 Dublin Ports MP2 Project, Would it not be better for the Dublin Port Company to seek joint ventures with other ports? Rosslare Port has significant untapped capacity. Journey time from Dublin has greatly improved with recent motorway construction. Rosslare could deliver the increased capacity Dublin Port requires for a fraction of the cost and take much of its Ro-Ro volume. Dublin Port could then concentrate more of its space on Cruise and Ferry terminals that would add greater value to the Dublin city centre economy without causing as much road disruption. This initiative will help build Ireland's over all export capacity in preparation for the Dublin Port Company reaching its limit in 2040. In the context of Brexit, Rosslare Port has significantly less travel time to the continental market. Conclusion As stated in the introduction to this paper the regeneration of Dublin's Docklands has been the nation's most successful urban regeneration. 610 Billion invested has delivered well paid and sustainable jobs for Dublin's inner city. Docklands is now identified by F6ilte Ireland as a tourist growth zone. Dublin City Council has planned a water animation strategy for the River Liffey and surrounding canal network. Thus the future potential of the area has even more to deliver. We are concerned the doubling of the Dublin Port Company's capacity with the associated industrial activity and related strain on the transportation infrastructure will adversely impact both established success and future potential. Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 Donna Cooney Dublin Bay Norlh Green Party Clontalf Area Rep. 4 Victoria Road Clontarf Dublin 3 Date: 10th September 201 9 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, SON, 50S, 51, 51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Madam, An Bord Pteandla has received your recent submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. A receipt for the fee lodged is enclosed. The Board will revert to you in due course with regard to the matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions 1 observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord PleanQlawhen they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. Yours faithfully, Kieran Somers /// Executive Officer "/ Direct Line: 01-873 7250 Teil Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao ~itiuil ~oCall 1890 275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 &lSdid Maoilbhride 64 Marlborough Street LBlthredn Grbaslln Website www.pleana1a.ie Baile Atha Cliath I Dublin 1 RIomhphost Ernaif [email protected] DO1 V902 DO1 VW2 I -. Yr I - Dublin Port MP2 Project PL29N.304888 6 Submission AN BORD PLEANALA Councillor Donna CooneY 1. 4, Victoria Road, Clontarf Dublin 3. , L Dublin Bay North Green Party . The submission is mainly concerned with the environmental impact of this proposed development on human health and on flora fauna and wet land and marine habitats. * This pmpased dpveloprnent incluks a nl(mber of SAC with priority habitats under the EU Habitats Directive: A 1. Baldoyle Bay SAC 000199 2. Howth Head SAC 00020i 3. Malahide Estuary SAC 000205 * 4. North Dublin Bay SAC 000206 Note: ~hi;SA\c overlaps with North Bull island SPA (004006) and adjoins Howth Head SAC (000f203) and South Dublin Bay and River L. Toka Estuary SPA (004024). ThereforeMe conservation objectives for this site shourd be used in conjuncfion with those for the ovedapping and adjacent sites as appropriate. *. 5. Rogerstown Estuary SAC 400208 6. South Dublin Bay SAC 000210 7. Ireland's Eye SAC 002193 8. Rockabill to Dalkey Mand SAC 003000 n 9. North Bull Island SPA 004q06 + 10. Rogerstowd Estuary SP&O~€O~5 1 1. Baldoyle Bay SPA 004016, 12. South Dublin Bay and ~iver'~ofka'EstuarySPA 004024 13. Malahide Estuary SPA 004025 24. Lambay Islal?d SPA [004069] q5. Howth Head Coast SPA [004113] 16. Ireland's Eye SPA [0041171 17. Dalkey Islands SPA [004172] * *Note: North Bull Island.SPA is a priority habitat under the Habitats Dire,ctive for Brent Goose1 Branta bernicla, Shelduck Kadorna tadorns, TeaH Anas crecca, Pintail IAnas acuta , Shoveler IAnas clypeata ,Oystercatc her /Haematopus ostralegus , Golden Plover lPluvialis apricaria, Grey Plover IPluvialis squatarola , Knot ICalidris canutus, Sanderlingl Calidris , DunlinlCalidris alpi6e, Blac k-tailed Godwitl Limosp, Bar-tailed Godwit kimosa lapponica, Curlew INumenius arquata , RedshanM Tringa totanus , Turnstonel Annaria interpres, Black-headed Gull IChroicocephalus ridibu14 us and Wetlands. Note that this SPA overlaps with North Dublin Bay SAC (000206) and ~ockabillto Dalkey Island SAC (003000). It awnsHowth Head SAC (000202) and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA (004024). See map 2. The conservation objectives for this sifeeshou!dbe used in conjunction with those for ovedapping and ?idlacent sites as appropriate * A Concern ofthe accumulated effects on habitats as the conditions in the planning permission allowed for time fpr seasobal recovering an the sea bed and local habitai bet'ween dredging and dumping materials. The silt also prevents sunlight . * Harbour parpoiselPhocoena phocoena-/ 1 Consetvation objectives for : ~hkdbillto Dalkey 1sland.SAC [003000]1351 Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena Twjnaintain the favourable conservation condition of Harbour porpoise in Rockabill to ~alke(lsland SAC, which is defined by the following list of attribubs and targets: Human activities should occur at levels that do not adversely affect the harbour porpoise community at the site. , Concerns include of the accumulated effects on the internationally protected Harbour Porpoise during the dredging and the dumping at sea at the Burford ban^ Concern NIS mitigation proposal (Pg. 378) that once nUrmal operations commence ('including appropriate ramp-up procedure"}, there is no requirement tb halt or discontinue the MP2 PROJECT DUBLIN PORT COMPANY DRAFT CEMP IBE14291Draff CEMP Page 7 Potential Impact Summary of Proposed Mitigation activity itnight-time, nor if weather or visibility conditions deteriorate. nor if marine mammals occur within a radial distance of the sound source that is 500m for dredqing snd demolition works, and 1,000m for piling activities . I would request that no night-time dredging or dumping should take place in order to protect Harbour Poqoise. (Ref: NIS page 399) capital D ial properties and are proposed to be,undertaken on * Air Quality concerns Concern with the increased negative i associated with ihe,MP2 Project. Y The nearest sensitive residential receptors to the so residential dwellings on York Road,*Pigeon ~iuseRoad, Ringsend Park and Pembroke Cottages circa 400 metres to the south of the application boundary of the development. To the north of the development site there is the extensive residential area of Clontarf with the pcoperties along Cloritarf Road closest to the application boundary of the development at circa 450 metres. The nearest commercial receptors to the proposed developrnentjnclude the various operations along Alexandra Road to the norlh and east of the site. In addition, the 3 Arena Theatre and the Gibson Hotel are the closest receptors to the west of the site. To the south of the site there are a numbe~of office developments on York Road and Thorncastle Road. Ecological receptorscan be affected by deposition of air pollutants such as ni&n oxides and sulphur dioxide. The "eareot sensitive ecolagical shes to the proposed develc~rnentare the Grand caMl pNHA (Site Code 21041, the Royal Canal pNHA (Site Code-2103) and South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPAdSite Code 4024). Note that the NIS assessment page 287 on Nitrogen Dioxide (N02)and ambient air quality is , outdated 1.3.4.1 Nitrogen Dioxide (~02)Nitrogen Dioxide (NOZ) is classed as both a primary and a secondary pollutant: As a primary ppllutant NO2 is emitted from all combustion processes (such asa gas/oil fired boiler or a car engine).,'As a sscondary pollutant NO2 is derived fr6m atmospheric reactions of pbllutants that are themselves, derived mainly from traffic sources. The results of the EPA Dublin network monitoringfor the period 2002 to 2017 are presented in Table 1-8. The avedge results indicate ~omplioncewlth the limits for the protection of humon health (Table 1=2) with the trend indicating a generally reducing ambient level over the flfieen year period in-Dublin. **Resubso far in July 1019 padcularly at the port tuhd exits show levels above the legal-limitsthat are a danger to hugan health from NO2 levels. The €PA published these results as ihdication is that if this 2019 frend continues and further studies and test results confirm NO2 levels have been-exceeded,local authorities in Dublin and its suburbs will be required to prepare air quality actidn plans and intervene to reduce - emissions, the EPA .So any increased activity should be measured against these results, tho EU ambient air quality directive requires a Iocal air quality plan and activities may need to be Iimited or cease if causing danger to human health especially sensitive sub groups. ' PMfO levels'are also exceeding WHO guidelines in 2018 in port areas of Breakwater Road South and Port lands adjacent to Tom Clarke Bridge. ~t The proposed port activities air quility mitigation measures and the Government's proposed 'National Clean Air Strategy is unlikely to become effective in the short to medium term. Table 1-19 tocat Impact to Air Quality as a result of Operational Traffic ddes indicate increased levels dpir pollution in all fourfeceptos: R Residential Housing on East Wall Road, Apartments on Sh Houses on Pigeon House Road. I Undewater Noise Pollution The site is noise sensitive due to the proximity of marine River Lamprey, Sea Lamprey, Eel, Smelt and Shad, an resident seal population and Harbour Porpoise associa Conservatior;. The undetwater noise impact thresholds generally in Popper et a[. (2014), NPWS (2014), NOAA (20 (2012). The outer part of Dublin Bay is a popular recre dives at Scotsman's Bay, Sandycove, Muglins Rock, Dalhey Island and lrelands Eye. Popular wreck sites include the Queen Victoria and other wreck sites further out. The closest of these sites (Scotsman'sBay) is located some 6 km from the end of theGreat South Wall, which is in turn over 2 km from the neareq piling activity. Noise levels from construction in the port will be confained in the dredged channel close to the source and will not propagate out to the wider bay area. Shipping entering or leaving the port will result in localised increases in noise levels in the outer bay.'This effd'ct is accumulative in conjunction witc the Alexander basin development. Negative effects of dredging and dumping of dredged materials. t 8 J 1 Temporary impacts on water quality have the potential to occur during the construction \ phase of the works. Mobilised suspended~sedimentrelease through capital dredging and disposal activities are the principal potential sources of environmental impact. Ref NIS: Pg. 337 1.5 Descripfion of Potential Impacts 7.5. ? Construction Phase lmpacts 7.5.9..1 Potential lrirpa~tCasa result of capital dredging works The process ,of dredging unavoidably causes disturbance of sediment 06 the channel bed and dispersal of some material in the water column. Disposal of dredge spoil at the licenced* dumping site in Dublin Bay also results in sediment release. These losses may have potential impacts on marine life and water quality in the form of a suspended sediment plume within the water column. The accumulated effects of the Alexender basin redevelopment and this proposal give little time for recovering. Though the activity is ceased during March to ~a~ to lessen harm on fish life, with our wild salmon rh-ribers at only five out of hundred reiu~ingfrom sea any negative effects on returning Salmon must be addressed. "z In conclusion all issues must be addressed to protect the Dublin Bay environments andits inhabitants. .i We commend and support the proposal for a Greenway.for walking and'cycling on Norfh Port lands. * Signed Councillor Donna Cooney 2'- '4 R(easo find €50 fee enclosed / T Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 An Bord Pleanila Roisin O'Callaghan Fisheries Environmental Officer Inland Fisheries Ireland 3044 Lake Drive Citywest Business Campus Dublin 24 D24 Y265 Date: 10th September 2019 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N, 50S,51, 51A, 49, 52,53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Madam, An Bard Pleanala has received your submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. The Board will revert to you in due course in respect of this matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions f observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord Pleanala when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. Yours faithfully, (llhD4A* Kieran Somerd Executive Offi&r Direct Line: 01-873 7250 Tell Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao AiUQil LoCall 1890275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 S&d Maoilbhride 64 Marlborough Street Uithrehn Gdasgin Websib www.pleanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublln 1 Riomhphast Ernal I [email protected] W1 V902 DO1 V902 lascaeh Intire hreann Inland Fisheries Ireland Case 05/09/20 19 Re: SI D: MP2 Project at Oil berth 3 and 4 Eastern 011 Jetty Dublin Porf In relation to the above proposed development and your correspondence dated, please find IFl's comments outlined below: The Liffey represents an important salmonid system with excellent populations of Atlantic salmon, Sea trout and Brown trout throughout. Both migratory and resident fish groups utilise coastal habitat in the vicinity of the proposed development at some time during their life cycle. In addition to a summer run of Salmon, Grilse & Sea trout, the tiffey system is also known to contain populations of all three species of Lamprey found in Ireland. All three Irish Lamprey species are listed as Annex II species under the EU Habitats Directive. Migratory Atlantic salmon, Sea trout, and Lamprey (juvenile fish on their seaward run and adult fish returning from the sea to spawn) have to puss through the Liffey Estuaty /Dublin Harbour to reach the sea or return to their spawning grounds. Large numbers of eels also migrate through this area. Estuaries / transitional waters include a variety of different habitats. Their importance to fisheries relate to the fact that migratory fish must pass through these zones on their passage to / from the sea, while such transitional waters also act as important spawning / nursery areas for a wide variety of different marine fish species. Ground and seabed preparation and associated construction works, including dredging, topographic alteration and the creation of seawalls, roads and buildings etc. have significant potential to cause the release of sediments and pollutants into surrounding waters. Pollution of the adjacent coastal waters from poor on-site construction practices could have a significantly negative impact on the fauna and flora of surface waters in this area. High levels of suspended solids settling on the sea shore and seabed can alter habitats resulting in potential loss of feeding, nursery and spawning grounds for fish. All measures necessary should be taken to ensure protection of local aquatic ecological integrity, in the first place by complete impact avoidance and as a secondary approach through mitigation by reduction and remedy. Foreshore works should be designed and implemented in an ecologically sound and sustainable way involving consuItation with IFI. Method statements should be submitted to IF1 for approval in advance of any "in-stream" works of any kind. Consultation should be undertaken with IF1 in relation to any application for a Section 4 licence for discharge of effluent to surface waters. IIE Baile Atha Cliath, 3044 Ckide an Locha, Campas Gno Larthaf Na Cathrach, Baile ~thaCliath 24,024Y265 IF1 Dublin, 3044 Lake Drive, Citywest Business Campus. Dublin 24, D24 Y265 -.?53(0)1 8842 600 - rjl;b!ir!bfTsheriesireland.ie - w.Fsherier1reland.le lascach nth kreann Inland Fisheries Ireland * :, ? *. , . Concrete / cement and other construction maferials can be highly toxic to aquatic life. Use of these elements should be strictly controlled and monitored with appropriate licensing where applicable, padicularly where botching / casting is planned locally. Implementationof comprehensive environmental management planning systems is essential for all construction activities. Surface water management (SUDS approach) should not in any way result in a deterioration of water qualify or habitat in natural river / stream channels or any receiving waterbody. IF1 will require a comprehensive method statement and specification detail for any settlement lagoon with a proposed discharge to surface waters. A comprehensive and integrated approach for achieving freshwater and marine protection during construction and operation should be implemented. On-site aftenvation ponds should allow for the settlement of fine/particulate materials before any discharge to waters. Class I petrol / oil interception and hydro-brake controls should be in place both on individuaf high risk discharges (e.g. HGV carparks] and on primary surface water discharges to protect receiving waters Interception fechnology efficiency is highly dependent on ongoing maintenance of these structures. A comprehensive long-term maintenance programme should be implemented to service these online features. Mitigation measures as outlined in the EIAR to protect the integrity of the Liffey system should be strictly adhered to and strict monitoring regimes be put in place. Of particular importance to IF1 are the following: 1 . Appendix 19-7 (Draft birds and marine ecology management plan) (Biodiversity) 2. Appendix 1 9-9 (Draft water quality management plan) 3. Appendix 1 9-1 0 (Draft dredging management plan) 4. Appendix 1 9-1 1 (Draft pollution incident response plan) It is recommended that the "Guidelines on protection of fisheries during construction works in and adjacent to waters" (2016) htt~://www.fisheriesireland.ie/fishen'es-manaement-l/624-suidelines-on- protection-of-fisheries-durins-construction-works-in-and-adiacent-to-watersbe consulted when undertaking any works on this site. particularly in the vicinity of surface water features. IF1 requests that it be informed at least 4-6 weeks in advance of any diversion work to be carried out during channel alterations of any kind. Should development proceed, IF1 should be consulted directly in relation to all mutters concerning fisheries and surface water quality. In particular, IF1 should receive regular communication from the Environmental Facilities Manager. IIE Baile Atha Cliath, 3044 Chide an Locha, Campus Gn6 Larthar Ha Cathrach, Baile Atha Cliath 24, D24 Y265 IF1 Dublin. 3044 Lake Drive, Citywest Busfness Campus, Dublin 24. D24 Y26S +353(0)1 8842 600 - d!~t.:tir:@iisheriesiretand.ie- www.flsheriesireland.ie lascach lntke hreann lnland Ftsherles lreland Reporting of aquatic monitoring data should be extended to IF1 on a scheduled basis. It is respectfully highlighted thaf appropriate environmental protection measures are the responsibility of the developer and contractor involved, and all works are subject to the provision of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 (as amended) and the Fisheries (Consolidation)Act 1959 (as amended). Ongoing aquatic ecological monitoring both during construction and operational phases should be implemented. I trust you will take our concerns on board when assessing this application Yours sincerely, Roisin 0' Callaghan Fisheries Environmental Officer lnland Fisheries Ireland - Dublin lascach lnfire Eireann Inland Fisheries Ireland Telephone: +353 (0)1 8842651 IIE Baile Atha Cliath, 3044 CBide an Locha, Campus Gn6 Larthar Na Cathrach. Baile Atha Clioth 24, D24 Y265 IF1 Dublin, 3044 Lake Drive. Citwest Business Campus. Dublin 24, D24 Y265 -?>3(0)1 8842 600 - rll::sli~ ~9fisheriesireland.ie- www.fisheriesireland.ie Our Ref: ABP-304888-19 An Bord Pleanhla Amrine Dubois Gafar Geological Survey Ireland Beggars Bush Haddington Road Dublin Date: 19th August 201 9 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berlh 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N, 50S, 51, 51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Ajexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Sir I Madam, An Bord Plean6la has received your submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. The Board will revert to you in due course in respect of this matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions / observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord Pleanala when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the 1 Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. I If you have any queries in the meantime, please contact the undersigned officer of the Board. Please quote the above mentioned An Bord Pleanala reference number in any correspondence or telephone contact with the Board. 1 Yours faithfully, dwnp ran Some Executive Officer Direct Line: 01-873 7250 i Tetl Te l (01) 858 8100 1 Glaa A~tidi~ LoCalf 1890 275 175 a Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Sraid Maoilbhride 64 Marlborough Street ! Ldithredn Greasain Website www.pleanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 ; Riornhphast Email [email protected] DO1 V902 DO1 V902 mirm GlIbmmhe nmn~&ComhshaoiJ Geological Survey Department oFCommunmtms,. . uirbh6lreacht Gheolaiochta Climate Action & Environment An Bord Pleandla 64 Marlborough Street Dublin 1 County Dublin 8 August 2019 Re: Strategic lnfrastructural Eastern Oil Jetty, bublin Port Your Ref: Our Ref: 19/161 With reference to the letter received on 11 July 2019, concerning the MP2 Project at Oil berth 3 and 4 Eastern Oil Jetty at Dublin Port, Geological Survey lreland (a division of Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment) would like to make the following comments: Please note, Geological Survey lreland should be referred to as Geological Survey Ireland when included in reports. Gwherita~to Geological Survey lreland {GSI) is in partnership with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS, Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaekacht Affairs) to identify and select important geological and geomorphological sites throughout the country for designation as geological NHAs {Naturat Heritage Areas). This is addressed by the Irish Geoheritage Programme (IGH) of GSI, under 16 different geological themes, in which the minimum number of scientifically significant sites that best represent the theme are rigorously selected by a panel of theme experts. County Geological Sites (CGS), as adopted under the National Heritage Plan, include additional sites that may also be of national importance but which were not selected as the very best examples for NWA designation. All geological heritage sites identified by GSI are categorised as CGS pending any further NHA designation by NPWS. CGS are now routinely included in County Development Plans and in the GIs of planning departments, to ensure the recognition and appropriate protection of geological heritage within the planning system. County Geological Sites can be viewed online under the Geological Heritage tab on the GeoloaicaJ Sum's Odlne Viewer. The audit for Oublin City was completed in 2014. The details for the report can be found here. We recommend that CGSs be taken into consideration when undergoing the planning process. Our records show that there are no CGSs located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Therefore, with the current plan, there is no envisaged impact on the integrity of CGSs. However, if the proposed development plan is altered, please contact Siobhdn Power at [email protected]~for further information and possible mitigation measures if applicable. Groundwater Groundwater is important as a source of drinking water, and it supports river flows, lake levels and ecosystems. It contains natural substances dissolved from the soils and rocks that it flows through, and can also be contaminated by human actions on the land surface. As a clean, but vulnerable, resource, groundwater needs to be understood, managed and protected. Through our Ground~terP~omamme, Geological Survey lreland provides advice and maps to members of the public, consultancies and public bodies about groundwater quality, quantity and distribution. Geological Survey lreland monitors groundwater nationwide by characterising aquifers, investigating karst landscapes and landforms and by helping to protect public and group scheme water supplies. With regard to Flood Risk Management, there is a need to identify areas for integrated constructed wetlands. We recommend using the GSl's National . - Aquifer and Recharge maps on our Map viewer to this end. - - - - Geological Survey Ireland. Beggars Bush. Haddington Road. Dubtin 004 K7X4, tralrnd. SuirbhQreacht Gheolaiochta ~ireann,Tor an Bhacaigh. Bdchar Haddington. Baile kha Claith DO4 K7X4. Bre. T +353 (011 678 2000 LoC.11 ILoGhlao 1890 44 99 00 www.gsi.ie hii&uf roimh comh~rcograri ntoeilge RobCumde, Gniornbaithe Survey. ~1SOR IUMdide & Comhshaoii Geological Department of Communications, Suirbhdireacht Gheolaioehta Climate Ac~on& Environment lreland I Breann Geohazards Geohazards can cause widespread damage to landscapes, wildlife, human property and human life. In Ireland, landslides are the most prevalent of these hazards. Geological Suwey lreland has information available on past landslides, for viewing on our website and as a layer on our Man View. Geological Survey lreland also engages in national projects such as Landslide Susceptibility Mapping and GWFlood Groundwater Flooding, and in international projects, such as theTsunamI Warning System, coordinated by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. We recommend that geohazards be taken into consideration, especially when developing areas where these risks are prevalent, and we encourage the use of our data when doing so. Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy harnesses the heat beneath the surface of the Earth for heating applications and electricity generation, and has proven to be secure, environmentally sustainable and cost effective over long time periods. Geothermal applications can range in depth from a few metres below the surface to several kilometres. lreland has widespread shallow geothermal resources for small and medium-scale heating applications, which can be explored online through Gedogical Survey Ireland's Geothermal Suitability maps for both domestic and commercial use. We recommend use of our ~eothermal~uftability ma~sto determine the most suitable type of ground source heat collector for use with heat pump technologies. Ireland also has recagnised potential for deep geothermal resources. Geological Survey lreland currently supports and funds research into this national energy resource. Natural Resources fMinealslAnnrenates~ Geological Suwey lreland is of the view that the sustainable development of our natural resources should be an integral part of all development plans from a national to regional to local level to ensure that the materials required for our society are available when required. Geological Survey lreland highlights the consideration of mineral resources and potential resources as a material asset which should be explicitly rccognised within the environmental assessment process. Geological Survey lreland provides data, maps, interpretations and advlce on matters related to minerals, their use and their development in our Minerals section of the website. The Active Quarries, Mineral Localities and themregate Potential maps are available on our M~PViewer. Other Commmt,t Geological Survey Ireland is the national earth saence agency and has datasets on Bedrock Geology, Quaternary Geology, Geological Heritage Sites, Mineral deposits, Groundwater Resources and the Irish Seabed. These comprise maps, reports and extensive databases that include mineral occurrences, bedrock/mineral exploration groundwaterjsite investigation boreholes, karst features, wells and springs. Please see our webske for data availability. I hope that these comments are of assistance, and if we can be of any further help, please do not hesitate to contact me, or my coleague Siobhdn Power ([email protected]). Amrine Dubois Gafar Graduate Geologist Geoherhage Programme Geological Suwey lreland Geological Survey Inland. &#gars Bush, Haddlngton Road Dublin DO4 K7X4, lreland. SuirbHireachc Gheobiochta $ireann. Tor an Bhacaigh. Bdchar i-ladaingon, bile &ha Oaith 004 K7X4 ire. T +353 (011 678 2000 LotrlllL6Ghlao 1890 44 99 00 vmw.gdlc hiiII12ear rdmh comhpreqgras i nGaci&e Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 An Bord Pleanhla Maria O'Dwyer Irish Water Colvill House 24-26 Talbot Street Dublin 1 DO1 NP86 Date: 10th September 2019 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N,503, 51,51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Madam, An Bord PleanAla has received your submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. The Board will revert to you in due course in respect of this matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions / observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord PleanAla when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. Yours faithfufly, Kieran Somers / Executive Officer Direct Line: 01-873 7250 Tell Tel (01) 858 8100 GlaO ~itiuil LoCall 1890 275 175 Faw Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Sraid Maoilbhrfde 64 Marlborough Street Liilthrdn Grbasdln Websits ww~.pleanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 Riomhphost Ernail [email protected] DO1 V902 DO1 V902 AN BORD PLEANALA [ BY- BY- The Secretary 1 An Bord Pleanhla - 6 SEP ZOW 64, Marlborough Street Dublin 1 LTR DATED FROM 1 Irish Water PO Box 6000 Oublin 1 lrebnd RE: Dublin Port MP2 Strategic Infrastructure Development Dear Sir I Madam, lrish Water would like to make the following comments in relation to the Proposed Strategic Infrastructure Development at Dublin Port. Any connection to a public water supply or wastewater network is subject to a connection agreement with lrish Water and connected water services infrastructure must be designed and provided in accordance Irish Waters Standards and Codes of Practice. Information on the connection process is available on https://www.water.ie/eannections/. Prior to any construction, the applicant may contact Irish Water in respect of potential diversionlbuild over to [email protected]. Further information on diversion/build overs is available at https://www.water.ie/connectionsldevelo~r-services/diversions/ We also request that the project be cognisant of the existing outfall in the vicinity of the development and that Dublin Port engage with lrish Water as development plans progress. Queries relating to the terms and observations above should be directed to [email protected] Signed on Behalf of lrish Water by Maria O'Dwyer SCimbirit Dime&- Mike Quimn (Chairman). ltrry Grant Cachal Marley, Brendan Murphy, Mlchad G OSullhm Qlk&he/ R+atmd O(ficrrTe& Cohrill, 24-26 Srdid Thalbbid. ~aikhtliah 1. DO1 NPP61 Cdvill Hwse, 24-26 Talbat Street Wtlln 1,001 NP86 Is clJdedchta gtrnlomhdahta alnmnithc at3 fidthearaim waireanns e ulxe tiream I I&h Water Is a designated company, Ilmked by MS. Uirnhir ChUraith. in tirim I [email protected] in Irebnd No.: Y0363 ,' I Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 a f P An Bord PleanGla Oonagh Duggan Birdwatch Ireland Unit 20, Block D, 8ullford Business Campus, Kilcoole, Greystones, Co. Wicklow Date: 10th September 2019 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths SOA, 50N, 50S, 51, 51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. I Dear Madam, An Bord Pleansla has received your recent submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. I A receipt for the fee lodged is enclosed. I The Board will revert to you in due course with regard to the matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions / observations received in relation to the application will be made available far public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord Pleanala when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. Executive Officer Direct Line: 01-873 7250 Tell Tel (01) 858 8100 ~laoAttl~lt Local1 1890 275 $75 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Srlid Maoilbhrlde 64 Marlbarough Street Lgithrdn Gr6as6in Website www.pteanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin I RIomhphost Emai I bord@pleanata,ie DO 1 V902 001 V902 Unlt 20 Block D t: +353 1 281 9678 Patron ~arlamh Bullford Business Campus e: Michael D. Higgins Micheil0.6 hubinn Kilwole info@birdwatchireb President of Ireland Uachkr5n na hgifeann Greystones Co.Wi&law Ireland A~~~ORDPLEANAU 47 0-47 BirdWatchIreland protecting birds and blodiverslty 0 6 SEP 2019 RE: BirdWatch Ireland submission relating to Dublin P September 6& 2019 BirdWatch Ireland has been monitoring the waterbirds and Terns of Dublin Bay as part of the Dublin Bay Birds Project since 2013. This submission focuses on the potential for impacts to birds from activities relating to development works. 1.1 In relation to dredglng works to deepen the channel for safe navigation and turning of vessels, we would like to highlight one area of concern. The area of interest is the location shown in Figure 3.12 on page 30 of the Natura Impact Statement (also in a zoomed-out map on page 19). There is an area at the very base of the Greavouth Wa$ip+P Liffey channel &rft2ema cooling water outfall, while not indicated on the maGRis notable urn enof waterbirdssse e.g many gulls, but also smaller numbers of Sanderling, Black-taile8 Godwits, Redshank and others. The area is immediately south of the area proposed to be dredged. BirdWatch Ireland is not able to discount that disturbance from operational activities to these Species of Conservation Interest would not be an issue in this area. Black-headed Gull is one of the SCIs of the North Bull Island SPA and South Dublin Bay and Tolka Estuary SPA that uses the outfall in significant numbers (See data in Appendix 1which is a selection of counts and full data is available if requested). In March of 2019 and through the Dublin Bay Birds Project 93Black-headed gulls were counted at this outfall site. The 2018 Dublin Bay Birds Project Technical report gull roost surveys shows that there are 17,776 Black-headed gulls using the Bay in 2018. The Black-headed gull numbers associated with the outfall are 3.3% of this figure which is significant. This highlights that the outfall area is of importance to Black-headed Cull and other SCIs of both adjacent SPAs and the potential exists for dredginqand operational impacts to the species using this area. While the assessment details mitigation measures which address any potential impacts to the Terns in the area "All capita1 dredging works will take place within the period October and March", there is no assessment of impacts of works during these months on the SCls using this small area immediately below the channel to be dredged and widened. This assessment needs to be undertaken and included in the application to rule out any likely significant impacts on the Species ofConservation Interest in the adjacent SPA and to ensure that the Conservation objectives of the SPA are met In padc&r we are concerned that ex-situ factors such as these activities near the owtfall could pose challenges to meeting Objective 1. 1.2 In the section 434Aerial Noise and Visual Disturbance, 4.3.4.1 South Dublin Bay & River Tolka Estuary SPA and North Bull Island SPA: "The overwintering special conservation interests of South Dublin Bay & River Tolka Estuary SPA and North Bull bland SPA forage in the Tolka Estuary adjacent to aspects of heMP2 Project. " And "At operational phase, there is also the potential for disturbance to the overwintering special conservation interests of these same SPAs from normal operational port activities in the MP2 Project area and in particular from the operation of Berth 53 and the operation of the Greenway with the proposed Heritage Zone adjacent to the Tolka Estuary as a destination for amenity users." And " The possibility of likely- significant- noise and visual disturbance effects to the overwintering special con&vation-interests of these SPAs cannot be excluded at the screening stage." ~ktorcG ~yrm, ~hdlpnol. c ~asey.A Tahn, c OX- B ~*lhI~~nis, T cum s Wikon. A ~c~h BirdLife RaglPkod mlily m 6A5 0i~aehrdmd u(ru rmdlq nmr d ~lsklm ~wmCMS-Y. tnbii Ehmn. 8 company 1mlsa b~ guuml4t. AT ' ONA Rgbterad h Iremm, no. 11L6B. Registered NiUnit 20, Bbck 0. &Mad Businem Gmous. klkwte Cauvldaow, Iraand. Unit 20 Block D t: +353 1 281 9878 Patron ~arlamh Bullfwd Business Campus e: Mlchad D. Higgins Michdl~.6h~iginn . ' Kileoola info@birdwatdrkel Resident of /reIsnd UachtaIdnna hkktann . Gwstaoes and.ie . . . . Cp.Wickbw lreiand ~irdWatchlreland ~rotectinabirds and biodkrsitv the mitigation prdposed iS the following: "Construction of Berth 53 and heritage installations will temporarily cease during periods ojgreatest low spring tides to avoid disturbance at exposedfeedin$ grounds within the TO!& Estuary. Gates will be used at the site of BeGreenway to control the movement of people during periods of gieatest low spring tides, again, to avoid disturbance at feeding grounds within the Tolka Estuary. Following the implementation of mitigation to prevent disturbance, construction and operation of the MP2 Project will not adversely affect the integriv of the South Dublin Bay and River Tolka Estuary SPA." BirdWatch Ireland requests that a schedule of extreme low tides be provided to it by the project developers relating to the these works when they are being planned and to be alerted when works will cease and recommence at this site due to the low tides. We make this request due to previous experience where mitigation measures presented in planning applications have not always been undertaken 'on the ground'. We request that this be a planning condition ifthe development is consented. 1.3 Breeding Cuillemots The Environmental Impact Assessment assesses the impacts of the proposed development on breeding Guillemot in the Port. Very little info Port and appropriate monitoring is required mitigation measures of the provision of nest should be a commitment to monitoring thes there should be no blocking of access of exis potential breeding birds have finished th up on appropriate solid structures in advance is also t nesting sites are examined before any demolition M are present in the nest site. 1.4 Timing of Works: BirdWatch Ireland is very concerned about populations within the Bay and the Liffey c measures to ensure that no works will be populations but some works are not due t not anticipated to commence until 2025. at extreme low tide. The mitigation measure states that works will cease on these occasions. It is imperative that one or more ecological Clerk of Works is onsite monitoring activities and that monitoring reports are circulated. Sometimes despite the best intentions of mitigation measures on paper, differences arise In implementation on the ground. We request that absolute care is taken to ensure that mitigation measures are complied with in the years to come. We repeat here our above request that the cessation of works during extreme low-tides be communicated to Birdwatch Ireland. Any relevant monitoring reports and this specific information relation to low-tide works should be sent to@f~@bis- as well as to staff monitoring seabirds and waterbirds in Dublin Bay. Prepared by Oonagh Duggan and Helen Boland, BirdWatch Ireland. Unit 20 Block D I: +353 1 281 9878 Patron hrlamh Bollford Business Campus e: Mlch;lel D. Higgins Miche&l~.6hUi~im Kflcoole inf~@birdwatchirelPtesident of Ireland Uachtadn na /?&reann Greystones and.ie Co.Wicklaw Ireland Bird~atchlreland protecting birds and biodiversity Yours sincerely, Oonagh Duggan Assistant Head of Policy and Advocacy Birdwatch Ireland - = >- Dublin Bay BirdsProjetct (funded by DublinPwt Company) A selection of low-tide counts relating to the small intertidal area adjacent to the cooling water outfall at the Great South Wall (part of count subsite W L63). Co-ordinates 53.341299, -6.l80985 - 04.11.201 01.12.201 13.02.201 19.02.201 16.03.201 10.01.201 04.10.201 20.11.201 14.02.201 14.03.201 15.04.201 4 4 5 6 6 8 8 8 9 9 9 Bar-tailed 3. 5 Teal 6 18 9 7 28 2 77 20 7 a Turnsme 2 8 1 8 1 Wigeon 6 8 6 1 23 10 26 Our Case Number: ASP-304888-19 Your Reference: Port of Cork Company (POCC) An Bord Pleadla Brian Mc Cutcheon McCutcheon Halley 6 Joyce House Barrack Square Ballincolig Co. Cork P31 YX97 Date: 10th September 2019 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N,50S, 51,51A, 49,52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Sir, An Bord PleanGla has received your recent submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. A receipt for the fee lodged is enclosed. The Board will revert to you in due course with regard to the matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions !observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord Pleanala when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www. p!eanala.ie. Yours faithfully, Kieran Somers 4 Executive Officer Direct Line: 01 -873 7250 Teil Tel (01 ) 858 8100 Glao AitiOit LoCall 1890 275 175 Faca Fax (01 ) 872 2684 64 SHid MaoilbhrIde 64 Marlborough Street Lhlthrehn Grbasain Webslte www.pleanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 Riomhphost Email [email protected] 001 V902 DO1 V902 The Secretary, 5 September 201 9 An Bord Pleandla 64 Marlborough Street Dublin I Re: ABP Ref No. 304888. Appllcatlon by Dublin Port Company for Strateglc Infrastructure Development at Dublin Port Dear SirfMadam, We act for the Port of Cork Company of Custom House, Custom House Street. Cork and submit the following observation in regard to the application made by the Dublin Port Company under Case Ref. No. 304888 for approval of the MP2 project at Dublin Port. We enclose the statutory fee of €50.00. The Porf of Cork Company supports the proposed development which is generally consistent with European policy as set out in the Trans European Network -Transport and with national policy as set out in the National Ports Policy 2013. The provision of additional infrastructural capacity for the Ro-Ro and Lo-La services is justified by: (a) the overall growth in the Irish economy and (b) the need to provide for larger vessels. However, we note that the Project Rationale, which is attached as Appendix A to the Planning Report, understates the Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo capacity of the Port of Cork and appears to imply that the MP2 Project Is designed facilitate a further increase in the share of national Ro-Ro traffic passing through Dublin Port. We therefore submit the following observations in order to ensure that due consideration is given to the projected increase In the Ro-Ro and LbLo trades through the Port of Cork which will occur in parallel with the MP2 Project. ~lsoin DUBLIN CORK (..-..I. ,! 11.: .. ,,,,,,,.,., . 6 Joyce House, earracksquare r;2 c!,,,!., :,.JI,I - 7 Ballincollig, Co. Cork Ctu!rko~~Hdey 15 a ('r*lru pdll~trlB~prry~,lu~ed utlllr~ lllr Llrnlled P~ll~tt*ihpsAil, :I[ : t .'!I P3t YX97 Ivr)!, rcglillaion no lYIll Peqlslered in Ireland W 12b4H) Ragbtertd offk 6 Joytt nouce, 1)at1,1~1:Square, ball~nrolltg.(o lolk Olrettorr: B1l.m hY;(urrhPnn. QNkon)DlpTP . <-.4 [t*, c-1; ttj7 1 4353 (0)21420 8710 OluGlS J.1IPI ((haltman) Tom IlalI*y. BA(Nodl, t.4KlJPBI( IR(HfHo,~s)Cerl llwl Fnq #4\lP~ I qtt~e- ,a,t.lt~ *[I 11tt~.11 , inlo@mhplanning ie The applicants refer to paragraph 2.5.1 of the National Ports Policy, which states that: "It is recognised that the location of Dublin Port Company inevitably gives the porf competitive advantage over other ports and will glve rise to competition concerns. However, a continuation and strengthening of the landlord model of operation in the port's estate wNI aNaw far continued intra-port competition between the privately operated port teminais Wthin the pod estate. " While the provision of increased capacity may have the beneficial effect of increasing competiiion between shipping servlces within Dublin Port the project should not be promoted on the basis that it will result in a reduction in the share of national Ro-Ro traffic passing through Rosslare or Cork. We note the statement on page 17 of the Project Rationale that: "The demand for port infrastructue is a derived demand and the high volumes through Dublin Pod arise from the choices made by shipping lines. These chokes do not arise from capacity constraints elsewhere in the Irish port system in either the Ro-Ro or Lo-Lo modes". In support of this argument the Applicants present a series of tables1 which list the volumes of trade recorded in 2018 and the average annual growth rates over the previous 5 years. These tables are used to support the questionable conclusions that: "Only two ports In Irelend handle significant volumes of Ro-Ro freight (Dublin and Rosslare). " "In the case of Lo-Lo Dublin is more than thetimes lerger than the next biggest porf (Cork) and has the highest gmwfh rate over the past five years of the three Irish porfs thaf have container terminals." "DublinPorl's large share of national volumes in the fwo unifised cargo modes arises as a result of its location (close ro the centre of the largesf population concentrahn in the countryl and to the depth of water available." "Ro-Ro capacity in Cork was not considered because the demand for Ro-Ro freight through the port is so small. In 201 7 the total volume was 556 units and h 20 18 increased to just 3,561 units" We do not agree that a snapshot of the volumes carried in 2018 supported by an average over the previous 5 years provides a reliable basis to assess the long-term trend in Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo traffic through the Port of Cork. The table in Appendix 3 of the Project Rationale shows that, while there was a sharp reduction in Ro- Ro traffic in 201 1 following the termination of the Cork-Swansea service, the throughput was largely restored in 2018 following the introduction of the Cork-Santander service. In our opinion, this short-term fluctuation will not affect the projected future growth in the Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo trades thmugh the Port of Cork. 3. The Capacity of the Ringaskiddy Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo Terminals The Port of Cork Company estimate that the existing infrastructure at the Ringaskiddy Terminal already has the capacity to handle 35,000 Ro-Ro units per annum. This estimate doe multipurpose berth, which was permitted by the Board under SID Ref. No construction. While the link span at the multipurpose berth will not be .-Tables . 1 I,12(a) and 12(b) in the main text and Appendix 3 Dunkettle mad upgrade schemes are completed, the additional capacity which will then be available in Ringaskiddy should be taken into account in assessing the need for the MP2 project in Dublin Port. The Planning Rationale also understates the Lo-Lo capacity of the permkdcontainer terminal at Ringasklddy which is given as 240.000 TEU p.a. The plans and particulars approved by the Board under PA0035 assumed a capacity 279,000 TEU per annum, based on a 6-day container dwell time and that the terminal could accommodate 322,000 TEU when the dwell time is reduced. 4. Compliance wCth the National Planning Framework We note the Applicant's assumption that: "Dublin Port's large share of national volumes in the fwo unitised cargo modes arises as a result of its location (close to the centre of the largest population concentration in the country) and to the depth of water availablen, In our opinion, the Planning Rationale should not assume that the existing distribution of population between the Dublin region and the rest of the County will be maintained In the long term. Section 1.2 of the National Planning Framework states that: "...at the moment Dubfin, and to a bsser extent the wider Eastern and Midland area, has witnessed an overconcentrstion of population, homes and jobs. We cannot let this canthue unchecked and so our aim is to see a roughly 50:50 disfributlon of growth beheen the Eastern and Midland region, and the Southern and Northern and Western regions, with 75% of the growth to be outside of Dublin and its subunbs* (emphasis added). We would also point out that the depth of water at the existing and proposed berths at Ringaskiddy is more than adequate for the larger Ro-Ro ferries and there is no requirement for dredging along the approaches to the berths. 5. The Impact of Brexit We agree with the Planning Rationale that the potential effects of Brexit are: (a) a diminution in economic growth with a consequent effect on the growth of port volumes and (b) a changing of trade patterns with an increasing proportion of Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo trade on direct routes to Continental Europe at the expense of UK routes. We accept that the effect on the national economy may be short term in the context of the long-term nature of the MP2 project. However, this may not apply to the spatial implications of the change in trade patterns as the increasing proportion of trade using direct routes to Contlnental Europe Is likely to continue Into the long term. The Need for the Proposed Development, as set out In Section 1.4 of the Planning Report and Chapter 3 of Volume 2 of the EIAR, highlights the fact that Dublin Port is not jus Network but also a Designated Noted on the North Sea - Mediterr market share of Irish trade could be attributed to its current status as a Designated Node on the land bridge though the United Kingdom to Continental Europe. I 0 6 SEP 2019 . .- LTR DATED FROM mmrm ,-,I 11118-r ma McCutcheon Halley tm0w * cHb:yc:;) p12L.,4b,G c;p.:~,-:~ll.~ 11010" However, the map of the TEN-T Corridors, which is included as Figure 1-1 of the Planntng Report demonstrates that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the TEN-T networks may generate increased demand for direct shipping services from Ireland to Continental Europe. This could lead to a transfer of some of the Ro-Ro traffic to Lo-La and/or a transfer of some Ro-Ro servlces from Dublin Port to the Port of Cork. 6. Summary and Conclusion The Port of Cork Company supports the MP2 project as proposed by the Dublin Port Company and recommends that permission be granted for the full extent of the capaclty proposed. However, it is important to clarify the rationale for the project and to ensure that the project is not based on the assumption that it will result in a further increase in the market share of Dublin Port in the provision of ReRo and Lo-Lo services. A project of the scale and strategic importance of MP2 should be assessed in a long-term context and with due regard to the spatial planning as well as the economic objectives of the National Planning Framework. It should not be based on the assumption that the current overconcentration of population and economic activity within the catchment of Dublin Port will never be addressed. It should not be assumed that the Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo traffic through the Port of Cork will remain at 2018 levels or that shlpplng lines will decline to avail of the additional Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo capacity which is currently under construction at Ringaskiddy. It should also be recognised that the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union has the potential to reduce the current competitive advantage of Dublin Port and generate demand for new direct Ro-Ro and Lo- Lo services from the Port of Cork to Continental Europe. Yours sincerely, =*(- Brian McCutcheon McCutcheon Halley J 0 6 SEP 2019 I - LTR DATED - . cwu 1 : McCutcheon Halley :;;;;;, cuI.;11-- 1 C,I' I .B ('I<.i ,TI Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 An Bord PleanAla Peadar Buckley 38 Hollybrook Grove Clontarf Dublin 3 Date: 2nd September 2019 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N, 50S, 51,51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Sir, An Bord Pleandla has received your recent submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. A receipt for the fee lodged is enclosed. The Board will revert to you in due course with regard to the matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions !observations received in relation to the application wilt be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord PleanAla when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. Yours faithfully, Executive officer- Direct Line: 01-873 7250 feil Tel (01) 858 01 00 Olao Aiti8iI Locall 1890275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2884 M Srftid Maoilbhride 64 Marlborough Street Uithrehn GdasAln Website www.pkanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 Rfornhphost Email [email protected] 001 V902 DO1 V902 Hollybrook Grove HousehoIders Association HolIybmk Grave An Bord Pleanala 64 Marlborough St Dublin t Observations on Du bli I wish to object to this project on a number of grounds. The information provided by the Dublin Port Company is very sparse and their Summer 2019 Newsletter is far from clear or straightforward. On the other hand if one goes into the website one is snowed under from all of the documentation and it is difficult to see the wood from the trees. Most people in the Clontarf area are unaware of these proposals and many are on annual holidays. The people of Clantad thought that the expansion of Dublin Port into the Clontarf side of the harbour was ended after the reclamation of the 52 acres was withdrawn. But now the current project is proposing the expansion out into the bay on the northern side of the port by the building of a new open structure Ro-Ro Jetty (Bm53). 1 have no idea of the measurements of the proposed jetty. Is it for one ferry or for more than one. In the Dublin Port Masterplan 2040 reviewed in 20 18 it appears to show two Jettys in Fig 5 of Chapter 5 measuring 345111each and starting fmm within the port. This totals 690m and as Irish Shipping's newest and largest ferry the WB Yeats is 194.8 meters this jetty is simply enormous. This will reduce the sailing and boating area between the Bull Walt and the north docks for boats and leisure craft. I believe that this should be refused by the authorities because the Port Company has been swallowing parts of this area over the years with its constant need for more and more of our bay in Clontarf white at the same time filling in docks and landing areas for shipping within the pwt. This has had a detrimental efFed on the physical environment in Clontarf and proposed Berth 53 will also have a detrimental effect. Boats who previously used to sail over to, but not into, the shipping lams will have their area of sailing reduced. Both the sailing amas and the depth in Clontarf are reducing constantly as the bay is silting up. Dublin Port should be refused permission for the infill of Berth 4 because of the possible future needs of Dublin Port and because all berths are a strategic asset in the port area. Dublin Port has been filling in berths in the port area for many years and if they are allowed to continue doing this their demands for more berths may continue further out into the bay. It is disappointing that Clontarf Sailing Club have decided not to object to these proposaIs because of their relationship with the Port Company. At present if ships, vehicles or equipment leak oil, fuel or chemicals in Dublin Port, this would occur in a confined or relatively enclosed area. Any such leak or accident in the Mure which occurs on or near the open jetty at Berth 53 will be in the open port and the westerly winds may wash It onto the bay area in Clontarf which is rich in marine life including sea birds and the shellfish etc. which they feed on. I am also concerned that some wildlife which has become extinct in parts of Ireland including for example the curlew, and which is still present and feeds in the bay area of Clontarf could be threatened by this project. Most shipping starts off with a large puff of black smoke. Bringing shipping out into the open Berth 53 will be very unattraclive for visitors and the residents in Clontarf. Some of the residents in Clontarf swim at the Bull Walt within the bay area and occasionally we get a slight smell of petrol or diesel on the water. If Ro-Ro boats are allowed to load and unload at berth 53 the danger of occasional oil or fuel leakage from vehicles and boats will increase. Finally the physical and visible environment of Dublin Bay from the Clontarf Promenade and the Bull Wall will become a lot less attractive and more industrialised by the construction of Berth 53 and its use by large Ro-Ro shipping. At present most shipping docks within t the port. There are no proposals to screen Berth Yours sincerely FROM, I Peadar Buckley Chairman Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 An Bord PleanGla Deirdre Tobin Clontarf Residents Association 35 Castle Avenue Clontarf Dublin 3 bate: 10th September 201 9 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N, 50S, 51, 51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Madam, An Bord Pleanela has received your recent subrnission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. A receipt for the fee lodged is enclosed. The Board will revert to you in due course with regard to the matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions f observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord PleanAla when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. Yours faithfully, Executive 0ffic;r Direct Line: 01-873 7250 Teil Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao ~itluil LoCall 1 890 275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Sraid Maollbhrlde 64 Marlborough Street Mithrehn Gr&as%in Website www.pleanala.ie Balle Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 Rlomhphost Ernail [email protected] DO1 V902 DO1 V902 RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION C/O ~~%@QRQ!,BWMAWO~5~7. LOG nc-hV3- (7 A%?- 0 6 SEP 2019 D?.irr An Bord Pleanala, FM:$ so Typ~: -L, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin, 1. Tm: \b'-Y7 8, L~,,,J A Re: Dublin Port MPZ Project - PU9.304888 Dear Sir / Madam, We would like to make the following observations regarding the above application by Dublin Port, and we enclose the required fee of €50. Clontarf Residents' Association ("CM")welcome the fact that Dublin Port no longer plans to reclaim the 52 acres and will instead be re-tasking Port lands for core Port activities. This approach has been the long held favoured option of the CRA. In terms of the proposed re-development of berths, creation of the unified ferry terminal, the construction of the open structure jetty, the new cycle way and improved visual landscape, our concerns are centered around the impact on the neighbouring communities and the uniquely sensitive environment within which this development will take place. NeighbourlngCammunlUes: We would ask An Bord Pleanala to impose such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all activities undertaken during this development will be undertaken in sympathy with the local communities. It is essential that Dublin Port be required under the conditions attached to any approval, to ensure that activiiies that are particularly noisy or disruptive are project managed to ensure minimal inconvenience to their neighbours. Envinmmerrt: This project is taking place in a uniquely sensitive environment and our position is that all work must be undertaken in an endronmentally sensitive way, that seeks to protect and enhance the flora and fauna of Dublin Bay for future generations. We are available for consultation on this project at any time. Yours sincerely, Deirdre Tobin On behalf of Uontarf Residents' Association v Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 An Bord Pleanaa Peadar Farrell 49 Foxfield Avenue Raheny Dublin 5 Date: 30th August 201 9 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, SON, 50S, 51,5?A,49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, ToIka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 7 and 3, Dear Sir, An Bord Pleanala has received your recent submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will take it into consideration in its determination of the matter. A receipt for the fee lodged is enclosed. The Board will revert to you in due course with regard to the matter. Please be advised that copies of all submissions I obsenrations received in relation to the application wil! I be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord Pleanila when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www. pleanala.ie. I Yours faithfully, Executive Officer I Direct Line: 01 -873 7250 Teit Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao AitlQll LoCali 1890 275 175 Faca Fax (0 1) 872 2684 64 Srdid Maoilbhtlde 64 Marlborough Street LYthrdn GdasUn Website www.pleanela,ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 Riomhphost Ernall [email protected] DO1 V902 DO1 V902 Your case Ref: PL29N.W 49 Foxfield Avenue Raheny, Dublin 5. 21 -08-2019, RE: 30488P Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 4 and 3. Dear SirlMadam, I wish to object to the granting of permission for the above development on both proper planning and sustainable grounds and on environmental grounds. 1-0 Proper Planning and development. ABP adjudicated on most of this Project at length in 201 5. Now 4 years Later all the same works/areas/locationr arrive back as Dublin Port have changed their mfnds again. Little of the Development Ref: 29N. PA0034 that the Public and ABP spent considerable time and effort on has been completed. Yet as repeated in this apptication consultants have written pen miles of reasons that project was necessary. Most of the previous project that they claimed necessary was umecessary. Who would believe them now? The timescale for this project on the enctosed chart is In the application are scheduled to be completed in 20 unfafr to grant pnnhsion for such a duration. mere could be affected by this permission and they would h 1 suspect that there Is a reasoned motivation by Dublin Port here to get successful applications in the bag before massive houdng developments came on stream on adjoining green field sites to the Port. Thls would deprive the new residents of sites Hke say the "Glass Bottle" slte of any say about new Port development work (up to 2032) that could commence years after they had moved into their homes. Members of the pub(fc are entitled to have a say as to what happens in DuMin cfty including the Port area. To study the proposed development a member of the publk wit1 need documents for a number of permissions in order to see what is permitted. Then they would have to check to see If that is the latest permisston for that little piece of the Port, side by side Berths are planned under different permissions. looking around the Port in this application I note and 13 meters deep. I also know that the Fai excavated fnto the flaar of Dublin Bay Is f ust bet that ABP will be adjudicatfng again on another by the Port and its UK consultants. New reclaimed areas are planned to be excavated to extend the Port eastwards on the North and South of the river Liffey. It is stated in the EIS that there is a high probability of discovering shipping antiquities there. Yet they plan to excavate these areas with a dredger which would suck up the sea flaor and its contents through a steel pipe and spray it all out into the hold of the dredger. These areas are so sensitive that the areas should be excavated out In the dry to ensure proper supervision and proper Archebgy procedure is followed. This current application and change of mind by DuMin Port would appear to have been caused by the advent of much Larger container ships wishing to use the Port. These hips according to the application are 240 meters in length, that Is 787 feet long, these are monsters. A public debate is necessary about bringing these huge mega ships right into the heart of our city. The foUowing has not been addressed with these ships: The air pollution caused by the dirty fuel that they burn. Turning, manoeuvring and risk to other Liffey users of these giants In the Port. Nofse pollution from the 1000s of containers carried being unloaded 24/7. Increased dredging and dumping into DuNin bay to keep the fatrway open. For balance here the length of the playing surface in Croke park is only 145 M long. Such ships would need 2 lengths of Croke Park to Berth. 2-0 Environmental considerations. Dublin Port in this application seeks permission to excavate out the sea floor in the Port and dump this material into Dublin Bay. The planned excavation of Bert 50 A, Berth 53, the extension eastwards would cause a total of 424, excavated. Various muttipliers can be used, 1 make a tonn -a el;id As with concurrent projects this is planned to be dumped in 10 to 20 meters of water on top of all Life that lives blowon the Burfort bank just off the Bailey light in Howth inside Dublin Bay. We the Divers using Dublin Bay see the silt spread out all over every plant, crab, lobster and every Wing thing in Dublin Bay. Dublin Port use this dumpsite inside Dublin Bay as its totally dispersive and empties its contents just as fast as they can dump it. The sfte slopes back towards the city from 10 m up on the Bank down to 20m therefore all dumped rnaterMLs come back into the Bay. The entirety of the dumped material Is spread all over Dublin bay adding to a major extent to the silting up of the Blue Lagoon/Causeway between Sutton and Dollymount and But1 Istand. Yes, the pen miles of pages in the €IS rehashed yet again say that this is all ok, but these guys do not dive down to see the results of their handiwork. All river Ports are really filthy at the bottom with estuarfne mud continuously being washed downstream, I guess the oil berths will ahhave added chemicals to be shared out with all the creatures living in Dublin Bay. This current planned dumping would be added to the 10 Million tons that ABP permitted In 2015 in 29N. PA0034. Then €PA also added permission for a further 1 Mllian tons permitted In maintenance dredging. Cddthe permission for the 10 million tons now be withdraw as the new application in effect supersedes 29N, PA0034. They are using various permissions as cumulative totals for dumping. So, what is there to prevent bublln Port changing its mind again in 2 yean time and get permission for changed works in the same locations and to dump more millions of tons of materials. It would be comical were it not so serious to note that the excavations to extend the Port eastwards will take place In or adjacent to Special Areas of Protection SPA 004024 and SPA 004006 The dumping takes place inside the RockablU to DamSpecial Area for Conservation (SAC 003000). The dumpsite is a feeding and breeding area for Porpoise that the SAC was set up to protect. Yet they condition that would make it impossible to see a porpoise mammals will be under the dredger when it decides to d the Bay. OuMin Port have Mred the "Charity" the lWDG observers on the dredgers. Acting as hired hands they a comment of this development and their finding should All the excavation works including the dumping and distribution of the dirthilt that they dump take place inside the Dublin Bay Biosphere. Dumping by Dublin Port now takes place 12 Months a year as they stitch different permissions together. In one application (as in this one) they boast that they will not dump or excavate the river from March to May because of Smoks and Lamprey running in the river. They also ctairn that they would not dump in the summer to avoid the Porpoise calving season. But then they got an Epa licence for maintenance dumping and are now planned wlth it to dump dudng the above months. The divers In Dublin Bay are now being restricted wlth sewage overflows into the n'ver on nearly a weekly basis. As soon as we get any easterly wind the visibflity underwater makes it unsafe to dive as the silt and mud that they dump which lies on the sea floor gets lifted up into the water column with the easterty wave action. It is the writer's belief that Dublin Port are abusing the Planning system with contiguous applications designed to baffle all observers. I ask that you use your good office to protect the public and do not give permission to the Is application. Yours Sincerety 1 Our Ref: ABP-304888-4 9 I I I.' An i Your Ref: Dublin Port Company Bord 1': Pleanila Helena Gavin RPS Planning & Environment West Pier Business Campus Dun Laoghaire Co.Dublin Date: 2nd August 201 9 1 Re: - . 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N,50S, 51,51A, 14% 52, 53 and associated termtnal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. Dublin Port, off Jelty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. Dear Madam, En~losedfor your information is a copy of a submission received by the Board -from Transport Infrastructure Ireland, in relation to the above mentioned proposed development. If you have any queries in relation to the matter please contact tt~eundersigned officerof the Board. II I I I Please quote the above mentioned An Bord Pleanhla reference number in any correspondence or telephone contact with the Board. Yours faithfully, Executive OffiGr Direct Line: 01 -873 7256 -- Tell Te1 (01) 858 81w Glao &Oil Local1 89B 275 t75 Faca Fax (GI) 872 2884 Ulthrean GrBaaBin Website www.pleanala.la Rlornhphost Emall botd&leanala.ie Our ReF: ABP-304888-19 An Bord Pleanhla Natasha Crudden Transport Infrastructure Ireland Parkgate Business Centre Parkgate Street Dublin 8 Date: 2nd August 2019 Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and OiI Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, SON, 50S,51, SlA, 49, 52,53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. - Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South,Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3, Dear Madam, An Bord Pleandla has received your submission in relation to the above mentioned proposed development and will fake it into consideration in its determination of the matter. The Board will revert to you In due course in respect of this matter. I Please be advised that copies of all submissions I observations received in relation to the application will be made available for public inspection at the offices of Dublin City Council and at the offices of An Bord PleanAla when they have been processed by the Board. More detailed information in relation to strategic infrastructure development can be viewed on the Board's website: www.pleanala.ie. If you have any queries in the meantime, please contact the undersigned officer of the Board. Please quote the above mentioned An Bord Plsanila reference number in any correspondence or telephone contact with the Board. Yours faithfully, I Kieran Somers Executive Officer 47 Direct Line: 01-873 7250 TeH Tel (01) 858 8100 ~laoAltl~ll LoCall 1890 275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2084 64 Sdid Mao#bhrMe 84 Marlborough Street ' LBlthredn OFBasetn Webob te.pkanala.le Baik Atha CHath 1 Dublin 1 i RImhpM Emall [email protected] W1 WM 001 VgOZ 4 AN BORD PLEANALA LDG- I! Bonneagar Iompair cireann ASP- - 1 --ar???* InA*,:.;' r:\,~a ! ,:':I?? 2 9 JUL 2019 Fee: G Type. The Secretary Time: By: PA1 An Bord Pleadla u 64 Marlborough Street Dublin 1 D5ta I Date ~r dTag I Our Ref. Bhur dTag 1 Your Ref. 25 July 2019 T1119-106451 Re: SID - 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty and at Berths SOA, SON, 505,51,51b, 49,52,53 and associated terminal yards to provide for varlous elements including new Ra-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. I refer to correspondence received from RPS on behalf of Dublin Port Company in relation to the above. Transpart Infrastructure Ireland (T11) notes that proposals include for works within the Eastern Port Area. TI1 recommends that if An Bard Pleandla consider a grant of planning permission of this application that planning conditions associated with Dublin City Council planning application ref. no: 3084116 should be attached. In particular TI1 would consider that condition No. 6 would be appropriate with minor revisions to item 0, as detailed below: - Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Strategy for the Dublin Tunnel for the duration of the works which shall be submitted to and agreed with the planning authority in consultation with Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the operators of the Dublin Tunnel. TI1 trusts that the foregoing proves of assistance to the Board. Yours sincerely, ata as ha Crudden Regulatory & Administration Unit Phisehlann B16 sonral pearsenta a shol&thralteardb I gcornhr61t lena Fhbgra ar Chosaint Sonral at6 ar fAlt ag w,tli.le TI1 processes personal doto In nccordance wlth its Data Pmtect~onNotice available at ww.tll la. Bonneagar Iornpelr Cireann Transport Inlrastructure trelend lonad Gno Gheata na PAlrca Parkgate Business Centre lrifo@b~le 8 wmtii.ie -313 (0)l M6 3600 +353 (011 646 3607 Sr+d Gneata r.a Ph~rcfi Parkg~teStrmr Belle Atha Cllath 0 Dublin 8 he, DUB 0~10 Ireland. 008 QK10 1 a . 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin DO4 R3N2 THE IRISH ACADEMY OF . Telephone: 453 1 665 1337 ENGINEERING- - 3 1 r TH -. .. LEADERSHIP IN A TMOF'GEAT CHANGE , - . .r An Bord Plean6la 64 Marlborough Street Dublin DO1W02 5' September 2019 Dear Sirs, Plannlng Application PU9N.304888 by Dublin dwelopment at 011 Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil letty and at Be~hsSOA, SON, H3S, 51,51A, 49,52,53 and associated terminal yards to provide for various elements including new Ro-Ro Jetty and consoldatlon of passenger terminal buildlngsj. The Irish Academy of Engineering makes the following obsewatfons in relation to this application. 1, Requlremnt for development on the scale proposed The application envisages that the total port throughput will Increase from 289 mt In 2010 to 77.2 rnt in 2Wand that the volume of unified freight, i.e. ReRo + Lo-Lo, would increase from 1.078 miltlon units In 2016to 3.174 million units in 20110. As unified freight is projected to provide the bulk of gmwth thtr projectl~nis examined in the following. The growth In Ireland's unified freight In the period 20'07-2018 Is detailed In Appendix I,&s can be seen from thls table Dublln Port's share of the total maskt increased from 74% In 2007 to 84% In 2018. This represented a ct>rrtlnua€lonof the longer term trend Identified in the Academy's report Brexit: ImpIIcutlons for Tmnsport infrastructure bvestmerrt, pp. 5&6 and Appenctb! 1, copy attached (soft copy available from the Acad~rnfswebsite www.he.ie]. The relatlonshjp betweerr unifwd freight demand and real economic qctivity in Ireland is examhed In Appendix 2 which shows that there is a very close relationship between these two mriablles where reported emnamlc aWty is measured by GNI* at constant prices - which is now the CSO's prefemed measure of ngt! ecgnomlc growth in Ireland. Based on the relatlonshlp shown in fig. 1 the Academy has calculated that if real eeanamlc growth increased at 3% pa. In the period 2019-2040,as advised by SSRI for tonger term analysts, the indew of GNI* would increase from 130.0 in 20s to 249,l in 1040 (base year 201). Based 6n the relatlonshlp calculated in Appendix 2 the Index of unified Freight would correspondingly increas fmm 132.0 in 2018 to 256-9 in 2040 (i.e. 1.0254(149.9).t 1,4433). The total demand for unified freight Is predicted, on this basls, to grow from 1.297 million units In 2010 (the base year) to 3.332 rnfllion units (1.e. 256,9+100>r1.297) in 2040, Thus Dublin Port's projedons are consistent wCth the Academfs analysis, provided Dubfin PsWs share of fhe total market for unified freight transport in Ireland exceedc95% by 2040. Kegisbred Charity Number CHY 18048 Company Number 43- 2. Appropriateness ddeveloplng Dublin Port In the manner envisaged In thls appllcatlon The Academy's analysis looks at the issue from a short, medium and longer terrn perspective (a) Short t~rmissues The Academfs Brexrt report, published in Jan 2018, highlighted the need to plan far a 'Hard Brexlt' and the corresponding desirability of increasing thraughpwt via the south coast ports, to provlde shorter sea cming~to Continental Europe and prodde For more balanced reglonal development. The Academy understands that Department of Tourism Transport and Sport (MT&S) has recently mmmkioned a part capactty study which will examine this potential. The Academy's report noted that throughput at the Ringasklddy bLo terminal, now under development, wlll be restricted by the planniw condition imposed by ABP, until the M28, far whicb plannlng approval was granted by AEP though now the subject of judlclal review, Is completed. The Dublin Port assessment of the potentiat for utillsing the south coast ports and specifically Rtngaskiddy aaumed the plannlng restriction would continue Indeflnftely. It also ignored the potentlal for aperating both the fluoli and Ringaskid* Lo40 fadlities untll Be M28 was completed. This optlon was not proposed inltlally but the Academy understands It 1s now under eonslderation by the Port of Cork Ca. The potential to maxlmise the capacity of other ports needs to be considend k greater detarl, pattlcularly given the potential impact of Brexit. The application envisages that unified freight hfk through Dublln will increase bm1,439 mtllion units In 20l& ta 3.174 rnlllion units in 2040, 1.e. a l20% increase in the period. The appifcatlon Is however silent on how this additional traffic would be transported to and from Dublln port. The M50 and Port Access Tunnel handle virtually all of this traffic at present and it appears to be assumed that these routes will contlnue to accommodate the substantially fncreased traffic volume. But Transport Infrastructure Ireland's Natbnal mads Network Indicators 2018 report shows that traPRe volumes on the An50 have been increasimg steadily since 2013 and as indicated In the graphic traffic levels, in both direetTons, now exceed Stable Flow Capacity for much of the day between 06.00 and 21.00. While it is recognised that HGVs acwunt for I&$than 10% of daily traffic on the M50 in practice, in terns of road utilisation, they account for multiples of that figure, Thus increasing the volume of HGV traffic to and from Dublin Pork by 120% by 2040 would have very serious consequences for M50 tramc flows. This problem will be made mare acute by the mast recent proposal by the National Transportatlon Authority (NTA) that the completion of the proposed Metrotink, from Swords to Sandyford, would not commence for 20 years. The Academy had previously argued for this development as a means of reducing private car traffic on the M50. The Academy welcomes the proposed development by Dublin Port Co. of an 'inland port' at Coldwinters, St Margareb, Co. Dubfln, for the storage and repair of empty containers, tasks previously undertaken at Dublln Port on very valuable land. But the Academy notes ABP's conclusion in determining the planning appeal by Dublin Port against condilons imposed by FCC that The proposed development will result in an approximately 7% increase in PCU traffic Rows at the NZIR135 junction. In the Opening Year + 15 years scenario, traffic generated by the proposed dev~lopmentwill amount to 5,6% of the traftic on the N2/R135 junction". Given that the 2018 AADT at this polnt on the on the N2 was only 38,500 this implies that the proposed inland port would make little contribution to reducing the additional HGV traffic envisaged In this a pplicatfon, The Academy is also conscious of international trends in port development. Historically ports were located as close to major cities as possible, save for those specialising in bulk cargoes. Indeed it could be argued that major cities located near potential ports. This was of course determined by the fact that goods were transported to and from ports by horse and cart initially and Later by railways, thus favouring location in or immediately adjoining cities. But with the switch from n'fo mad haulage using HGVs, the requirement to locate adjoining dues no longer applied and most ports have moved or developed some signlfiant cllstance from major cities, Indeed Dublin Port k now the lawst survlvln# cityport in these Islands, as may be wen from Appendix 2 of the Academqs Bnxit report. (c) Longer twm cunsIdemtCons The requirement to protect cities, in the future, against the potential adverse impact of rising sea levels looms larger every day, The Academy, In several recent reports, considered how Ireland's greenhouse gas emisslon (GHG)targets could be met In the future, The eanclusians were that It wlll be technically very dlffieult and extremely costly. It appears prudent to assume that it may not be possible to arrest sea level rise and that remedial measures must be planned for. Fortunately Dublin City Council has been to the fore in this regard and commissioned a report on an 'Integrated Water Resource Management Planning far the Dublin City/Dublln Coastal Region'. This repart was prepared by CPM and DHI, both highly reputable International consultants and was completed In June 2009. tt concluded that, in addition to the flood prevention rnaasuns undefiaken h the past ten years, it may be necessary to provide a tidal barrier across the mouth of the LiffeyI between the eastern extternities of the North and South Bull Walls, to protect the dty from flooding In the foreseeable future. The construction and operation of such a barrier coutd have very significantly adverse implications for port operations. Thls issue needs to be addressed as part of longer term port planning and as part of thls application. The Academy Is of the vlew that there are a number of very serlous issues that need ta be addressed by the applicant and indeed by othes before a posithe determlnatian can be made In relation to this application. Glven the cumplexity of the hues involved the Amderny considers that an oral hearing will be necessary. lhis observation is accompanied with the required fee of €50. Yours sincerely Dr. Gabriel Dennison Chief Executive m btis Untttmd Fret ndllc200740fs I 7" I , -- ; T- I I I Irish Academy of Engineering rn~~catlons tor - 7y i$,', - Oslo :A. ,. - 1. Wsimr Tbmembers d the T- md the contrWm ME@WKIh ammvm dkmmh fhmume d s m hfIla mammm&tlonr d B - -1va Summary 1. Irhd~on 2. Oublln M'aDominance oflrish UnWsd FdgM 3. Wfor~atives 4. 8r Departure patterndl of Ro-Ro mwda at Dublin Port 5. Risk tdenow using the GB [ndbrl- 6. Imp~hionsof Brait for Transport Infrastructure Inwment 7. Cprsdusians Appendix I: Appendix 2: Ammdlx 3 The lrlsh Academy of EngWwlng h~ wmpleted maaemy unaenam an analysis designed to a aeries of report8 on Irnporfant tuples wlth a help Identify appropriate solutions. Theme reports stgntdcant englnssrlng dlmenlsldn. Normially . - ' follow the normal pattern of the Acaderny*~work thew qmds foeus on longerberm hes.But on vir. quan#fying problems, mmlning attmatlves, occmbns, wHiauhriy when atmal dcwlopments pnqming mst dbtIvesolutions. PY "-' hrlrduce near term prohllems or huesthe The United Klngdm's Gmmment stated Brait aabgy -20% of such tmc,TMs adds to trerffic mgestion fs to Ism both the (EU1s)Single Mar)Pet and Q&ms an the M50 (land It8 cxpp~bachesand the oonsldmble Unbn. Given Ireland'# gmgraphic location, the a that employment WedIn the supply chaln rnawmt, It is one of the most open econmlea in the world and transport and bgleticsswbm in th0 G-r Dublln that a very high proporttan dour goodo kade, h volume Area adds to hwtng demand and unbalanced regional Wm,isBitherw9th~theUKorpassestfuKwghbheUY dewloprnent. It also ral~slgnlllcmt Issues as W supply the outurn of th~3rWt negotratlans is clearly of cM -4 - Importanoe. But at presmt whle haplng far the smk& - posable BrW pnrdence demands that w plan fw a With appprfak and tlrndy hwestment In the South ' - had Emit. Cast ports md the transport Irrtlastnrcturemrvhg &em, a algnllkant pohndthe unltiead trade now using Dublln E3axpt far fuels, oms, grains end transpart ~uipmmt Pott could dl dmln those ports, wtth their shorter the mt bulk of ow goads ex- and Imp- am salllng tlrnes to Cwrtlnental hmpe. Thts wnuld benelit trans- In traaers on roll on roll off h-h[Flo-Ro) or Dubhm itsdf, the @om along the Atlantic Corridor and In CcWners on lcad on load off weds &+Lo), which Irish and impoftors. f together are dwberd as unZblssd frdght. In the w of I Idad'8unlised trade wfth Continental Europg much oi Achieving thls wlll hmrriaquire a sign- change thia pmmthrough Dover. Btrt the port estate in Dmar is 'in mrrmtmiw, in *don to port dMpllent very small, in relalion to the volume af traffic hendkd and and funding. it will also requim cansidembh i-nt, IsunsultedfwhandlngaMlstwns~mewith~EU. as was made on the row WngDdlln Port h me nus &math transport routes rraay be wwntid. pmt and in addbnd shlpping cam.But giww the potentid dhuptlon posed W Ireland by Bmxit and the The Brerxlt pmblrm is made mare dmlcult by the fact chenges It Impllea for the EU's Tram Europem Transport that dm& 85% of Ireland's unM& trade nwv NW,EU snd EIB funding may well be &l&le through 13ubltn bt, In mom no port In the UK handas provided the required hbgrabd plans are dmdoped and f Amittad, as man as poab€e. 'GkQgar l~*gw~~W~#wm~~~ WWOfWhW&~~bWW&IMM1~ *d-d--+mlMd To hlghllght the problems pmed by Mtthe W d ~~m&awUQh~OIwgWs~ In ~bm~~~~tR~w~~~m~~'pover mounted a display at the 2017 Canswvatlw wtmmmwm cwbrellCe which aMthat "If wryone of the lt1,W -eb i. trucks passing through Dover each day had a 2 Bltx&d- mlnm m~pmwrmewQkns delay,brpassp~chockslitwouldresultina17mils mm mwm,mmww~jm WaWW tdlbak". If should aka be noted that despite tha wry dgniflcant trac volumes using the roads in Kent, the ~Y1%~w&mm~lamPm~rnM20 has not bmn extended the fine18 miles to Dmr. th6 Wt Wx4 mf @a&&pwk@mdim@&k&m ~k~~mWmm~&~.(~~dThus rt is mmgnised by bth the part authority and UK authorities in ~p~nerdthat Dover port is incapable of h-mnt@twwwIdan W&ym& Wb any of tmMwm~Mm.~ ' operating form customs hspectim regime, for traffic to and born the EU. The Prim0 MiniAter, in a recent rnTrn&-Wdlwb bRab#mrnrm mwd, speech, msgnised the wry limited Idmas avaliable B~~~WI$W~~S&.F~MMat some UK ports and proposed the creation of wms &$%~l~~Wi@~$Wd~~@Wrzones remote from the pa&. In the cam of Dover Ms wm facility could possibly ba located mar Stanford West in mmMmw Kent, approximately 15 miles from hw,where Highways MQkhWu&am l,ldkM, lhebnaar%&tWM &m England plans a E256m Ioq parking mawith capacity marour hwmbdh md for SMn whbleo. to releve queuing m heM20. Buf ma ELwp~~@IFlr"rty~t~-~~~propasat has faced significant heal oppmtiafl and has @,d,mUrnw* ~&f~~~ Ireland Ru-Ro Freight Trmc ('000 units) All Island Ao-Ro FreIgMTmflic ('000 units) -I987 - a015 2060 - 2016 I r 1887 1W 18% m0 20ffi gOm mQ5 XHO Wlt lmI- lCah =w a- llm I- Illhnwm I- Ireland Lo-Lo Freight Traffic ('000 units) All Island Lo-La FmigMTraMc ('000 units) T9B7- m5 2Wo - a15 m, Ireland Unitised Freight Total ('000 units) All Idand Unitism.! Frelght Total ('Mi0 unh) 1W7 - 2015 2WO-835 In he 2099 repast Dubln Part Wonal ~e\wropmeniPlan Study, vdby Idem for th~Dept. of Tvort, the Gmrnrnmt'a Wcy In ratdon ta Ireland'$ pMts was ctwmMaed es "The present ~13spoky is A The risk to Menaw using the GB landbridge mite ly mawkt led and dues ncvt Evtternpt to to the Continant, particdarty trade thmugh Dover. M&wentlanlstpdlcy*. It Is high$ The amciEsted requlremnt to sigrlflcant& Increase -m direct Ro-Ra to qm~o~le~er ~r apm is now approp* and Lo-Lo shipping capacity the gfven the mntlal threat to Ireland's tmdlng pamms Continent, where possible from South -st ports offering d11~ posed by EM. sh*r tim A The mqdrement to lmpme'b& cap& il the If the UK leaves the Customs Unlon, # wWly South Coast port8 and land tfansport etecessto proposed, then Wtw areas need to be wgentfy addnd. those~I~qcdckly~PQ-~ These Issues wlll be examlmd In mre datali In the fobidlya. As shwvn In Appendi 3 the pattePn of WRa sailings at But thls Wirlg pattern b also undeslrabte beau= of DubfIn Fort is extmmdy umnat pnmd lndeedtwiEe the impact It has on M50 traffic and on tthe &mend it each day vessels wfth an agguegate lane capacity of in mkson spw In pmt. It is alsoln mad& oorrtrast wssdlMan a~ordepmwlthina6OmlnI~~ b ttte prewnt pattern of Mcat Dover Port, where and hew Account far aver 55% of the daily Ro-Ro freight bRosdllngs am speed right WmugRaut the a4 hn. ferry mpactty, This bunched sailing pattern wll cleady Fortunately thls problem wl!l ha ml$tiwly to address. not be termbt~if w&s MngGI3 ports am subject to custcnns lnspech'on and other admkdstrathPe pmoedum in the future, RISK TO TRADE NOW USING YHE 68 LANDBRIDGE This trade is made up of two elenwnts posslbb Ro-Ro wrvtce to krhm Spaln could be :- developed for ftdght McIn the futum Hm d Hauliers tiwelling to or from mntdEurope the Brfttany !+&s MV PwR- Aven, wlth Its 200 via G& who are &atd b account for aver two pa8senger capmlty, deployed on thls rwta rnhit thirds of our untthd bade wiEh ContinenCal Eurnpe. lasuitable for all year round fmiiht operaticms. 1 to the Hauliifwng Wnem or fm deep sea Thw them may be a requirement to deproy vessels container ports of Fdbtowe, London Gateway and slmllar to the Rnnllnes Star Class wsels. wad Soulhamptan. on ttw Finlmmdendermany Ro-Ra freight setvbs, to provide a year mud Rlngasklddy- In bath cases the addidonal adrninlstratfve procedures France fmight mice, wlm Chmurg, rather then fanmlng Brexlt would place a slgnlficant tima artd cost Rmoff, perhaps being the French terminal, due Wenan shippers, thsthe need for alternatives. to its better road connections to Paris and beyPnd. In the wse of shipmots to Smdlnavls geogmpb The Star Ckswasel8 have a similar lane hgth dlchhthd them IEprobably no pmtlcal &m&ve, ta the W Ulpses, but have only me fieth of the Thm hullers wlll, OT nmesslty, ham to mntlnue to use passenger Wng cwityof the MV Pont-Aven. the parts of lmmhgham and Hull. Howwer for other Hawever It also seems Ilkely that Brexlt wlll alter the tradm fh abtematlves nesd t~ be rapldly devetoped. current 7Q30 split b&wwn Ro-Ro and Lo-ta frelght traffic to and fmIreland to elmrto the m:50 splk For shlppers demandtng Ro-Ro ddiver'ks them am three seen In the perst, as mate ftelght movements are shipped options; dlrectly to Contlnsntal Europe without drtvars I,e. A With the delivery of the MV W,B.Ye&s next summer, unaccompanied freight, due to the much longer salllng whlch will k~ sllghtly lwger than the MV Ulyssas, distances, Furthermom the cumnt 70:30 split of Lo-Lo Irish F~BBwill bs in a mition to offer much irafRc between Dublln and the South Catports could Increased RQ-Ro wilyon the Dublin-Cherbaurg #cmnt[ally change ~lgnlficantly,in fawr of the lmw, route. In 2018 Irish Ferries plan to deploy this mml 4~ provided the requlrd lnfrastructural iwestment In bath on the mute dudng the Mdayseason only, its large ths ports themdm and access to them Is put In plaw, mercawing capacity k lasuitable as was dane In Dublin in the pawl thlrty years. for par round freight opwtions betwem Oublln For contalnerlsed Kihtthm am a number of and Chwbourg. atternatlm A Ware&opt has svfRclent reclahned land to accurn- a very slgnifbant increase in A The recent announcement that a Con-Ro vessel, the number of sallmgs to Cantin- Europe, ttle MV Cellne, will be deploysd on the Dublln- ahrugge raute IS at majar sbnbee. ~hia from its tsthree existing berths, though # mdd not accommodate larger vessels than are cudy veaset Is a new typeofvassal, acmbetwen a udng the port This could be a significant constraint container ship and a Ro-Ro veasel. In opetation as targer -1s are increasingly being used on wntdnw, stadd two high, are loaded om low the longer sea crossings to Continerrtal hope, whaled tralm, called cmWmand towed onto to reduce wewing casts. Thsre wdd be a nwd tb vessel wing €ugrnasm.Th8 cassettes travel br dgnif~cantimstment In the mad infrasmrctm with the wssel and are hauled off at the receMng at the part, to sultably segregate arriving and end, whmthe wrrtalnw are then transfemd to deparbh.lg MC. conventional road trailers or mlH wagons. A The Port of Cork handles ths RlngaskBddy-Roscofl A The slgniflflcance of thls development k that the Ro-Ro ferry at went at Its Rhgaskiddy deep wlhas aWcagaclty equivalent to a Ro-Ro water faclltty. tt Is prlnaarlly used by tourists rather msel of 8km lane cami.e. almost Mcathe thy freight operami ktthis service and a capadty d the MV Ulysses. It will thus substantially inmase Imland's direct fr&ht connectivity with ~WrplnerrtalEuw and uuln, from ib4ruQJel prwlcledtre∾mstother~n&vork 88NtngmeoBthernast~ulaus~inEurope andtheErazlpawrail~tbr~wsMg dmltww fa more dl- deatlnafhrw. Hmew ~l4la~wlyacoMmxshipitwillmt ~thegamesuqeloeadlngontkmdnetwork But- Idm~venta ~~mddybr~w m a Ro-Ro mwl of equivalent cam, dqaignetl to W for 260,000 fEU'8 (bmty ht eqdvaht w,compared with lhe 210,000 TElJk But betawof tha much hgusallng dl&ahmfrom handled In MUIn 2018. The petmd Sbga 2 bbinto Zebnrgge, ISOnrn and CWurg,380nm, development would b- RhgwkWdy blo-!ty cwn~to~,6Onm,~much~to 300,000 W8. Thb dntiwly mM3ed sdyranaian RwRP and CmRa sdcesfm Dlrblh tb CaMnental wasdctabdbythehctthet, lnW,AnWPlemh kmpe wUl only provWe- approodmtdy one ffth of the Fefused phnlng psrmImlwr foresubstantirrlly ~Cu~prPrrtded~the~~route.facility, beram of the inadequate rod hfmmmue Thus addMona1 Lo-to to CwlbinenM Emp 88dw RhgdciW and b lack afmit mwhiiy. Given M€%f be @swltia1. UIatf~~nopros~of~~~RB~ totherail ~any~~lsthus ~aterlbrdwas & many yam th~second most mntln~mthe~~ntoftheM28,ftmChrkta fmportarrt &Lo prt In fha uountry and ~accaunfad Rlngadiddy. fMmetW ofmtbxd Lo-&W#c In the 1380%. But b-Lo trElffic through W- coaepaed afber 2006 Therefwe If the brt of Cork Is to make a slgnHImt rand ksItOdate,notwmrd.hpartffiIswasdue cmtrhtbn to inc&ng Let0 from the South tothemodelofLo-Lo~~~orl$at~,~~ttoCorrhtnental~byM20%canonlybe container 8tomge wdtywa8 dways IlmW. Thus W acf?Wdby both ths Tho11 and RingWIddy succswful aperettan the part qufred awry high dm tmnlhals w a petl~d,UMI the Mia when a of hmgmflon shlp menhrn mshm 'hdw of flw Vbpossible, tramport prwtdm. h the pwl thls wm provWed by though owngboth Lo-bMmb dmuhousiy Is the WabrW based Bdl Unes, which unfortunately not mdymvbged. wentlnto~In1~.Butthepwtdso~ fmm draught ddomma8d by Mtlng mnda or But the swltch from RMoto Con-Ro and Lo-Lo and sed!rnemhn and thus has fmqum but unpredhble frwn DublhPorttotfw&ufh&wtportsvJouldalso dmhgreclubmt8, Therefme whii the port oould ofpatmUdly ~r~tfteDublhdty,mkwuld GI* in- Lb-tO traffiC ~IIiu early 2000 his, if rsduw peek b4gh-t Mcvdumm an he M50 and Wed, k Is not clear that market wndMws will f&We tedycaspace reclukemnts In Oublh Port, SpmMcaUy m popem the WblWof tedeveloplng tlle Wha of land used for the Lo-b mnlnal and assaclmted swags The Port of Corks Lo-Lo tMchsm incmmd staadlly facnith on Wbw Penlnaula & w8ldentM and drsingtbpmtthirty~Todayltbcon~at -pum- MI In the Upper Harbour. But In ZU16 the part rewlvd 6, IMPUCATIOHS OF BREXIT FOR TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IHVESTMENT #tho south mast ports and pm~~ukir~~RIW ,$m to play a much wpandad rob in Ireland's unW W8 has WWI place. '?might trarrapw~post Bmtt, then rt ts ~sentla~fiat thdr con- with the mid-west and west am ImpPaued, A Ireland is nmrequbd to reduce GHG emlsslans In tho NOPETS sector by 2030 t~ an extent that will be But the dewlopment of a hfgh speed lmspml cmor very dlfiicult iu mchiem, glven the a& of agrlwltura Rllnklng Cork, Umerick and Gamka dm e~ntlrlff arad mad tmspwt emlsslme. .?thethw cltles, co-opatlng together, are to hmthe Is timely that ere belng appdnted icepabllity ofactlng as aaoounterwlght to Dublin, thus Thus It msuIt&nt~ to q~stehngblenced feglond dmlopment, On their own Wew potenMal Wwayalignmmts, Tha key lmuss in am that It la clear that none muld have the scale to doso. But thb regard in the context of ktdtwid the need to Improw natSanal i WftCI the nataMe wmptbn of Apple, whose connectivity to thmSouth CWports, capable ol "uet" 1s now pdmEvlly shim out by wire, mMalexpandon, Its rapid dmlopmerrt Is wen rnara vlWly all the significant indmtdd ern- In tritld. the~rkareawakdedinttmLmwHarbola,or accessed Givenfhaignmentdtheexbblngrannetwwkltb from the Swlh Rlw Road. wldmt that delb dl servlm cannot the me third W lndhtkm in W,vie. UCC, CTT, of dedking a one tlme between Oxkand hour trwd CUH and NMCl am atso must dlyapeessed Um&k and Urnwickand Galway. Thus B. rod sotutian from that road, for thw tmllhg fmm Umekk or Is bath esmM and unavo8dable. GW* The mquMmad -merit is now partially cnm- A The Wlkat Rlngasklddy and Whtkq& but quires the devebpment of slgnlhmtly knpmed Reflnew are also accessed from Dunkettle, road wnmdions betwen Galway City and the matMwrry network and the prwision d a Wmk-Cok Thus the ddcpment of high sped road access from rn~can~. Galway to lhmick to Cork wli not be complete without slgniRcantty Improved rod infm?mAm In Qdway and However there have been several significant the dmbp~.of_aL@eWc-Dunkettle Wrwy ddopmentsslnce the dgfnd motorway wdar &f the connection. latter was sought But most Importantly, In the context of Brwil and the A AB not~dMler. In 2015 An W Pleanala has mcwnltarit need to develop the MWN28, at a projected appp.wled the dmbpment of a road fed Lo-b wl d C180m in tEte metime psdod, It Is ~ntialto brminal at Ringasklddy, dasptte Its eratSlsr mledtlon d&op md,deliver the requhd road ~~cturein me in 2008 of sum an appllcath, due to Imdequate shortest pwsible tima and as oast dktiiyas possible. mdinfrastructum and tblack of rail connoctlvlty. Thls dwdopment 18 scheduled for completion In But the above does not mean that rsll hG3b parl to Nay m. In tha solution.The Southbound and Northbound weekday hourly traffic volumes an the alstlng NM at three A The mmmthas Included pdsionfor the re- lctcaths, as reported by 711, an shown In the MMng developmnf of the Dunkettle Interchange, mrvlng tigures, the M8 and N25 and tbGmk Swth Rng Road, as afdkwlunctlon, In the Capital Programme mf0- 2021, thus Wdng congeation at this key Junctlan and Impdng BCCBBS to the Lower Harbour and 1 At Lismmura, bemnBlsamey and Mallow Swth Rlng Raad, from the MB, A Batwem Blarney and BBackpaal, an the outskirts erf CMk City MI line b nether d&gn6W, nor dewloped b$ Wrcd ~n@[email protected]'w~~~wgm€ mqubmaffbt9bpthb ~#a~~s~ to~,ucem~~c=ntheH~~~~ providgerme~~ly~aMe~, ~.~b~~F+EM,mw*J - _: . L.- . -.:tb .,!-._ Units '000 -4 t7c-~ - - ...... , Oublln Ro-Ro Freight Ferry Arrlval Times & Capacity 30i0i - , v - - . - -. - "n-1- .. -1 ,.. -- coo:, ' $7.-;- - lY-,i,.- - :. I I-' +I ' . ,, Ir LI:+ ?l 1 Ill1 - . !' I - .. ,, 12k\ ,I . - I...I;;' I1 . " J -:I ;i.b .lclJ,&JL$ .:-.-- . - .. . I I I , JI. I - .: * 1 r l'. *y?-,+-. ;, 1 - 2. Idm: I ,Ll 1 ,I- - .;- ."'\,; --;I-.: - .,:a .,:a -.- I - - .= qJ; - . . -- I 1 IF* fii;!$>:.pkb1 1 I-- I 7 1' , -. - lr-. . r-. 1; 1; - ;'. -,:. lri. - :I;!--*l I".5 - Irish Academy of Engineering .- ,-, .- I . . :; . :>I. 1:1:.:=,; - I ll..T. .. . : -I '-1- . ll;, - mp I - Y-.-& i 1,- ications for .I'* %p+L -I Transport nfrast C nve Oslo She Irish Academy of ~ngineering 22 Clyde Road, llBalWMge, Dublin 4 Tebhone: +353 1 885 1'337 academyQhe.is . www.~.is Published by: the Irish Academy af Engineering -. ISBN: 978-0-9935995-5-2 T&forca Memiblers Eon lyslen Chairman] Genry Dugwn MsHedy Tan Leaby Paddy 1Pm31 %my smym :lXsctai~mer Tbe ~memibe~rsof the Tmlkhrce md!WconMiutb~s@sitidlpated in extensive ldbccrssionsirl I& course d a . sewd rneetkgs, amfa&h~ittedcomments on a series of draft reports. Its aofmtenhconvey &hegem tone !&!id dire6tim &the dis@&bn. but its momm@ations do not ne@sS@ly cleflsd a Cm~mnlposition reached - .. 3wtaU4tiimrnWrsbXb TdsI@-w, #nordo they necessarily reflect the dews d khe organr sations-to Mrich they ri ,-J I, CONTENTS Executive Summary I. Introduction 2. Dublin Port's Dominance of Irish Unitised Freight 3. Need fa-abmathres 4. Arrival & Departue patterns of Ro-Ro vessels at Dublin Port 5. Risk to trade now using the GB landbridge 6. Implications of Brexit for Transport Infrastructure hvestment 7. Conclusions Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3 - APPENDIX 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 UUU S UIlIIS Foreword The Irish Academy of Engineering has compbted Academy uldertakes an analysis designed to bL0 Port Goods a series of reports on important topics with a help identify appropriate solutions. These reports Port Conwm Wkrs Vehicles significant engineering dimension. Normally follow the normal pattern of the Academy's work these reports focus on longer term issues. But on viz. quantifying problems, examining alternatives, occasions, particularly when external developments proposing cost effective solutions. introduce near term problems or issues the Forth 142 22 0 5 27 1W ' ---. . Summary I GWy8 I I The United Kingdom's Government stated Brexit strategy This adds traffic 153 1 144 87 577 over 20% of such traffic. to congestion is to leave both the (EU's) Single Market and Customs on the M50 and its approaches and the considerable Union. Given Idand's geographic location, the fact that employment created in the supply chain management, it is one of the most open economies in the world and transport and logistics sectors in the Greater Dublin that a very high proportion d our goods trade, in volume Area adds to housing demand and unbalanced regional terms, is either with the UK or passes through the UK, development. It also raises significant issues as to supply the outurn of the Brexit negotiations is ctearly of criticel securlt y. importance. But at present while hoping for the softest possible Brexit prudence demands that we plan for a With appropriate and timely invement in the South hard Brexit. Coast ports and the transport infrastructureserving them, a significant portion of the unitised trade now using Dublin Except for fuels, ores. grains and transport equipment Port could be diverted to those ports, with their shorter the vast bulk of our goods exports and imports are sailing times to Continental Europe. This would benefit transported in trailers on roll on roll off ferries (Ro-Ro) or Dublin itself, the regions along the Atlantic Corridor and in containers on load on load off vessels (Lo-Lo), which lrish exporters and Importers. together are described as unltised freight. In the case of Ireland's unitised trade with Continental Europe much of Achieving this WIN however require a significant change this passes through Dover. But the port estate in Dover is in Government policy, in relation to port development very small, in relation to the volume of traffic handled and and funding. It will also require considerable investment, is unsuited for handling a customs regime with the EU. as was made on the routes serving Dublin Port in the Thus alternative transport routes may be essential. past and in additional shipping capacity. But giwn the potential disruptton posed to Ireland by Brexit and the The Brexit problem is made more difficult by the fact changes it Implies for the EU's Trans European Transport that almost 85% of Ireland's unltised trade now passes Networks, EU and EIB funding may well be available through Dublin Port, In contrast no port in the UK handles provided the required integrated plans are developed and submitted, as soon as possible. 1.- w ~re~and -Dublin 72.4% I APPENDIX 1: Irish Port's RO-RO Frelgnt ~rat~~1987-~~la The United Kmgdom's Government stated Brexit strategy The position is made even more difficult by the fact that is to leave both the (EU's) Single Market and Customs much of that Ro-Ro traffic uses the port of Dover to reach * 199ri Union. But the recent pint report from the negotiators the Continent. Dover is not just by far the busiest Ro-Ro of the European Union and the United Kingdom port In the Britain, handling ahost 40% of G6's Ro-Ro Government on progress durlng phase 1 negotiations freight units; it is also the busiest in Europe. But the port states, inter dial that estate at Dwer, dedicated to Ro-Ro operations. is only 45ha, one fifth the size of the port estate in Dublin Port, A TheUnited Kiiomwill maintain full alignment though Dover's RoRo freight vdumes are over two and with those rules of the Internal Market and Customs a half times those of Dublin. Thus, in the event of any Union which, now or in the future, support North- disruptions to the 24hr Cross Channel feny services South cooperation, the all-island economy and the at Dover, Ro-Ro traffi is queued on the M20, under a protection of the 1998 (Good Friday) Agreement". procedure known as Operation Stack. This happened on 32 days in 2015, as a result of refugee problems at Calais. A 'In all circumstances the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businewes to the whole of the Irish Port's La-La Traffic 1987-2015 United Kingdom internal marketp. At present it is unclear how these contradictory positions can be resolved. Given Ireland's geographic location and the fact that it is one of the most open economies in the world. Ireland's external goods and services trade equate to 17596 of To highlight the problems posed by &.exit the Port of GDP and a very hlgh proporbion of our goods trade, in Dover mounted a display at the 2017 Conservative Party volume terms, is either with the UK or passes through the conference which advised that "If every one of the 10,000 UK, then the outurn of the Brexit negotiations Is clearly trucks passing through Dover each day had a 2 minute of critical importance. But at present while hoping for the delay, for passport checks, it would result in a 17 mile softest possible Brexit prudence demands that we plan tailback". It should also be noted that despite the very for a hard Brexit. slgnlficant traffic volumes using the roads in Kent, the Except for fuels, ores, grains and transport equipment MM has not been extended the final 8 mles to Dover. the vast buk of our goods exports and imports are Thus it is recognised by both the port authority and UK transported in trailers on rdl on roll off ferries (Ro-Ro) or authorities in general that Dover port is incapable of in containers on load on bad off vessels (Lo-Lo), which operating any form of customs inspection regime, for together are described as unitised freight. traffi to and from the EU. The Prime Minister, in a recent On an all-island basis Ro-Ro is the dominant mode, speech, recognised the very limited land areas available accounting for almost 75% of unit shipments and over at some UK ports and proposed the creation of customs 95% of those movements are to and from Great Britain. zones remote from the ports. In the case of Dover this Thus, in the context of Brexit, it raises very serious issues facility could possibly be located near Stanford West in as to how this traffii will be affected in the event of the UK Kent, approximately 15 miles from Dover, where Highways leaving the Cmtoms Union. In addition an estimated two England plans a E250m lorry parking area with capacity thirds of our unitised freight traffic to and from Continental for 3,600 vehicles. to relieve queuing on the M20. But this Europe uses the GB land bridge to access that market proposal has faced significant local opposition and has and could thus face four sets of customs barriers to reach yet to commence development. its market, in the event of a hard Brexit, based on existing Thus it is clear that Irish exporters and importers face transport patterns, very significant challenges should the UK leave the Customs Union. Ireland Lo-Lo FreightTraffic ('000 units) All Island Lo-Lo Freight Traffk ('000 units) N20 SouthbounU Hourly Traffic Counts NM Nothbound Haurly TMk Counts 1987-2015 --DO - 2015 I Ireland Unitised Freight Total ('000 units) All Island Unitlsed Freight Total ('000 units) iW - 2M5 2000 - a15 From these it is clear that commuter traffic from Mallow rail line is neither designated, nor developed by larnrod accounts for over 55% ofdaily traffic on the N20 and 75% Eiiea~as a commuter route. Thus there Is an urgent of peak time traffic. But the Mallow - Cork route is served requirement to develop this route as a commuter service, by a rail line, which the relatively recently constructed N20 to reduce commuter traffic on the N20 by 2020 and parallels. However, despite the commuter volumes this provide a more environmentally sustainable solution. IMPL&ATIONS OF BREXIT FOR TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IrSVESf MENT NEED FOR ALTERNATIVES If the South Coast ports and particularly Ringadciddy A Ths Oral Hearing relating to the development of the In the 2006 report Dublh Port National Development Plan A The arrival & departure pattern of Ro-Ro vessels at are to play a much expanded role in Ireland's unified M28 has taken place. Study, prepared by lndecon for the Dept. of Transport. Dublin Port freight transport, post Brexit, then it is essential that their the Government's pdicy in relation to Ireland's ports A The risk to trade now using the GB landbridge route connections with the mid-west and west are improved. A Ireland is now required to reduce GHG emissions in was characterised as "Ths present ports policy is the Non-ETS sector by 2030 to an extent that will be essentially market led and does not attempt to to the Continent, particularly trade through Dover. But the development of a high speed transport corridor very drfficult to achieve, given the scab of agriculture implement an interventionist policy". It is highly The associated requirement to significantly increase linking Cork, Limerick and Wayis also essenUal If and road transport emissions. questionable whether this approach is now appropriate .. direct Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo shipping cawcity to the the three cities. co-opgrating to~ether,are to have the given the existential threat to Ireland's trading patterns Continent, where possible from South Coast ports Thus it is timely that consultants are being appointed to capablity of acting as a counterweight to Dubh thus posed by Brexit. offering shorter sailing tines fosleri~balanced regional development. On their own review potential motorway alignments. The key issues in that A The requirement to improve both capacity at the it is clear that none would have the scale to do so. But this regard are If the UK leaves the Customs Union, as currently South Coast port8 and land transport access to in the context of Brexit and the need to improve nalional proposed, then three areas need to be urgently A With the notable excepton of Apple, whose those ports. as quickly as possible cometiiy to those South Coast ports, capable of addressed. 'product" is now primarily shipped out by wire, material expansion, its rapid deveiopment 1s even more virtually all the significant industrial employers in These issues will be examined in more detail in the critical. the Cork area are located in the Lower Harbour, or following. Given the alignment of the existing rail network it is accessed from the South Ring W. evkknt that services cannot deliver the objective rail 1 The third level institutions in Cork, vk. UCC, CIT, deivering a hour travel time between Cork and 4, ARRIVAL & DEPARTURE PATTERNS OF RO-RO VESSELS AT DUBLIN PORT of one CUH and NMCl are also most readily accessed Limerick and Limerick and Galway. Thus a road solution from that road, for those travelling from Limerick or As shown in Appendix 3 the pattern of Ro-Ro sailin@ at But this tradIng pattern is also undesirable because of is both essential and unavoidable. Gahy. Dublin Port is extremely uneven at present. Indeed twice the impact it has on M50 trafk and on the demand it makes on space in the port. It is also in maked contrast The required road development Is now partially complete each day vessels wlth an aggregate lane capacity of in A The port facilities at Riiskiddy and Whitegate excess of 10km arrive or depart within a Wmin interval to the present pattern of MICat Dover Port, where but requires the development of slgnfficantly improved Refinery are also accessed from Dunkettle. and these account for over 65% of the daly Ro-Ro freight Ro-Ro sailings are spread right throughout the 24 hrs. road connections between Galway City and the few capacity. This bunched sailing pattern will clearly Fortunately this problem will be relatively easy to address. motmay network and the provision of a Limerick-Cork Thus the development of high speed road access from not be tenable ifvessels serving GB ports are subject to motorway connection. Galway to Limerick to Cork will rot be complete without customs inspection and other administrative procedures significantly improved road infrastructure in Galway and in the future. However there have been severat signiftoant the development of a Limerick-Dunkettle motorway developments since the original motorway order for the cornlion. latter was sought. But most Importantly, in the context of Brexit and the A As noted earlier. in 2Ol5 An Bord Pleanala has concomitant need to devebp the M28n\128,at a projected approved the development of a road fed Lo-Lo cost of E180m in the same time period, it is essential to terminal at Ringaskiddy, despite its earlier rejection devebp and deliver the required road infrastructure in the in 2009 of such an application, due to Inadequate shortest possibb time and as cost effectively as possible. road infrastructure and the lack of rail comectivity. This devdopment is scheduled for completion in But the above does not mean that rail has no part to play 2020. in the solutionThe Southbound and Northbound weekday hourly mfic volumes on the existing N20 at three A The Government has included provision for the re- locations, as reported by TII, are shown in the tollowing development of the Dunkettle Interchange, serving figures. the M8 and N26 and the Cork South Ring Road, as a freeflow junction, in the Capital Programme 2016- 1 At Charlevlle, 6Okm from Cork Ciy 2021, thus reducing congestion at this key junction and improving access to the Lowar Harbour and A At Lissavoura, between Blarney and Mallow South Ring Road, from the M8. A Between Blarney and Blackpod, on the outskirts of Cork City This trade is made up of two elements possible Ro-Ro service to Northern Spain could be increase Ireland's direct freight connectivity with planning permission to develop a new Lo-Lo ternlinal developed for freight traffic in the krture. However Continental Europe and will, fiom Zesbrugge, at its Ringaskiddy deep water facility in the Lower A Hauliers travelling to or from Continental Europe the Brittany Ferries MV Pont- Aven, with its 2400 provide direct access to the motorway network Harbour. The plan is to relocate Lo-Lo operations from via GB, who are estimated to account for owtwo passenger capacity, deployed on this route makes it serving some of the most populous areas in Europe Tivdi to Ringaskiddy, thus freeing up the Tivoli site for thirds of our unitised trade with Continental Europe. less suitable for all year rwnd freight operations. and the European rail network, for containers being re-development and facilitating the use of larger Lo-Lo delivered to more distant destinations. However vessels. A Hauliers fewying containers to or from the deep sea Thus there may be a requirement to deploy vessels because it is effectively a container ship it will not container ports of Fdixstowe, London Gateway and But the Stage 1 development at Ringaskiddy is only similar to the Rnnfines Star Class vesds, used create the same surge loading on the road network Southampton. designed to cater for 260,000 TEU1s(twenty foot on the Fhland/Sweden-Germany Ro-Ro freight as a Ro-Ro vessel of equivalent capacity. equivalent units), compared with the 210.000 TEU's services, to provide a year round FUngaskMdy- In both cases the additional administrative procedures handled in Tivoli in 2016. The permitted Stage 2 France freight service, with Cherbourg, rather man But because of the much longer sailing distances &om folowing Brexit would place a significant time and cost Dublin to Zeebrugge, 590nm and Cherbourg, 380nm. development would bring Ringaskiddy Lo-Lo capacity Roscoff, perhaps being the French terminal, due burden on shippers, thus the need for alternatives. to 300,000 TEU's. This relatively restricted expansion to its better road connections to Paris and beyond. compared to Holyhead. 60nm, these much enhanced Ro-Ro and Con-Ro services from Dublin to Continental was dictated by the fact that, in 2009. An Bord Pleanala In the case of shipments to Scandinavia geography The Star Class vessels have a similar lane length Europe will only provide approximately one fifth of the refused planning permission for a substantially larger dictates that there is probably no practical alternative. to the MV Ulysses, but have only one fifth of the capacity currently provided on the Dublin-Holyhead route, faclity, because of the inadequate road infrastructure Thus hauliers will, of necessity, have to continue to use passenger carrying capacity of the MV Pat-Aven. Thus additional Lo-Lo capacity to Continental Europe serving Ringaskiddy and its lack of rail connectivity. Given the ports of lmningham and Hull. However for other However it also seems likely that Brexit will alter the may be essential. that there is no prospect of connecting Ringaskiddy trades the alternatives need to be rapidly developed. current 70:30 split between Ro-Ro and Lo-Lo freight to the rail network any larger development is thus Waterford was for many years the second most contingent on the development of the M28, from Cork to For shippers demanding Ro-Ro deliveries there are three traffc to and from Ireland to closer to the 5050 split important Lo-Lo port in the country and accounted Ringaskiddy. options; seen in the past, as more freight movements are shpped directly to Continental Europe without drivers i.e. for one third of national La-Lo traffic in the 1980's. But Lo-Lotraffic through Waterford adlapsed after 2008 Therefore if the Port of Cork is to make a significant A Wiithe delivery of the MV W.B.Yeats m summer, unaccompanied freight, due to the much longer sailing and has, to date, not recovered. In part this was due contribution to increasing Lo-Lo capacity from the South which will be slightly larger than the MV Ulysses, distances. Furthermore the current 7030 split of Lo-Lo to the rnodel of Lo-Lo operations at Waterford, where Coast to Continental Europe by 2020 it can only be lrish Femes will be in a position to offer much traffrc between Dublin and the South Coast ports could container storage capacity was always limited. Thus for achieved by operating both the Tiioli and Ringaskiddy increased Ro-Ro capacity on the Dublin-Cherbourg potentially change significantly, in favour of the latter, successful operation the port required a very high degree terminals for a period, until the M28 is complete, when a route. In 2018 Irish Ferries plan to deploy this vessel provided the required infrastmturalinvestment in both of integration between ship movements and onshore major expansion of Ringaskiddy is potentially possible, on the route during the holiday season only, its large the ports themselves and access to them is put in place. transport providers. In the past this was provided by though operating both Lo-Lo terminals simultaneously is passenger carrying capacity makes it less suitable as was done in Dublin In the past thirty years. the Waterford based Bell Unes, which unfortunately not currently envisaged. for year round freight operations between Dublin went into receivership in 1997. But the port also suffers and Cherbourg. hrcontainerised f-ht there are a number of alternatives from draught restrictions caused by shifting sands or But the switch from Ro-RQto Con-Ro and Lo-Lo and from Dublin Port to the South Coast ports would also A Rosslare Europort has sufficient reclaimed land sedimentation and thus has frequent but unpredictable to accommodate a very significant increase in A The recent announcement that a Con-Ro vessel, dredging requirements. Therefore while the port could of potentially major benefit the Dublh city, as it would M50 the number of sailings to Continental Europe, the MV Wine, will be deployed on the Dublin- clearly increase Lo-Lo traffic levels to early 2000 levels, if reduce peak freight traffic volumes on the and reduce space requirements in Dublin Port. Specifically from its three existing berths, though it could not Zeebrugge route is of major slgniflcance. This needed, it is not clear that market conditions will facilitate it opens the possibility of redeveloping the 20ha of land accommodate larger vessels than are currently vessel is a new type of vessel, a cross between a that. used for the Lo-Lo terminal and associated storage using the port, This could be a significant constraint container ship and a Ro-Ro vessel. In operation as larger vessels are increasingly being used on containers, stacked two high, are loaded onto low The Port of Cork's Lo-Lo traffic has increased steadily facilities on Podbeg Peninsula for residential and commercial purposes. the longer sea crossings,to Continental Europe, wheeled tralers, called cassettes and towed onto during the past thirty years. Today it is concentrated at to reduce crewing costs. There would be a need the vessel using tugmasters. The cassettes travel Tiliin the Upper Harbour. But in 2015 the port received for significant investment in the road infrastructure with the vessel and we hauled off at the receiving at the port to suitably segregate arriving and end, where the containers are then transferred to departing traffic. conventional road trailers or rail wagons. A The Port of Cork handles the Ringaskiddy-Roscoff A The significance of this development is that the Ro-Ro ferry at present at its Ringaskiddy deep vessel has a total capacity equivalent to a Ro-Ro water facility. It is primarily used by tourists rather vessel of 8km lane capacity i.e. almost twke the than freight operators, but this service and a capacity of the MV Ulysses. It will thus substantially Our Case Number: ABP-304888-19 An Bord Pleanhla Helena Gavin RPS Planning & Environment 4 West Pier Business Campus I Dun Laoghaire Co. Dublin A96 N6T7 Date: 1st October 2019 'I Re: 15-year permission for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Oil Jetty and at Berths 50A, 50N,50S, 51, 51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated termin for various elements including new Ro-Ro jetty and consolidation of passenger Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and a Dear Madam, Enclosed for your information Is a copy of submission received by t ?e rd in relation to the above mentioned proposed development. I I If you have any queries in relation to the matter please contact the An gned officer of the Board. I Please quote the above mentioned An Bord Pleanhla reference nur? any correspondence or telephone contact with the Board. I r Yours faithfully, I I '4 I / 1 I Executive Officer I !$ Direct Line: 01-8737250 I I I I PMB I 1 I I, I I I ; I,] 8 - I i I 1 I I1 !I 1 Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao AItitriI LoCall 1890275 175 I '; Fa cs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Marlborough Street Ldlthrehn Gr4asBfn Webslte www.pleanala.ls Dublln 1 I I Womhphost Email [email protected] DO1 w2 : I Central Area Comrnlttes M Tuesday 1@ September Strategk Infrastructure Development DCC SID Reg. Ref PartXOM4; MP$10 Application No: ABP-304888-18 Location: oll Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastm ON Jetty, 'of~etty Road and Breakwater Road Swth, and at &Berths WA, ,51A, 49,52,53 and assmbkd terminal yards at Dublin Port Details: Tha proposed development seeks to prwlde for Ue lollowing at dubin ~(rt A new Ro-Ro jetty (Berth 53) for fenles up to 240m in I msnt north of the prt's fahayand south and parallel to the boundary of the S nd River Tolka Wary SPA (004024); A reorientation of kth52 permitled under An 8d A lengthening of an existing river barth (WA) to prwi additional capacity to handle larger cuntainer shlps. Th basin east d Oil Berth 4 on the Eastern Oil Jetty. The ~velopmentof Oil Berth 3 as a future dsepwalqr berth far the Cantalner FmlgM Terminal. This wwId include the change sf use of th m petroleum Importation to mtainer handling, r Consolidation of passenger terminal buildings. buildings, malof connectrng roads and rewgani trf land for the transit storage of RMQfreight units. Berth 53 The applicant has set out that Berth 53 will be used of RwRo Mesand will acmmadate ferries up to 240m in I-. of a new Ro-Rojeity structure of approximately 4U6m in overall length to te a new river berth. As per the public notices, the development will ahadst of the following: Construction of 8 no, reinforced concrete moo Construction of a new kkspm structure to alkw Constnrction of a new ramp structure to access the u Construction of a new deck stnrcturer to allow access Construction of a rein- canmete Congtruetlon of a rein- concrete hankeat for the tin Dredging of a berthing pocket to a standard depth of -1 0. Installation of scour protection ma#resses to provide the dadberthing pocket; Instalktion of a whpmtection structure b the no Installation of jetty furnibre including visual sc handdls and m autamated mooring system; Installation of a p-r outlet for Shtp to Shore suktation adjacent to the promparking and maz This berth will accommodate tha bow-to ndstemto berthing of a of -s up to 240m h length, whlch was granted planning permissdon, under An Bard PL29N.PA0034, but is required to be reposked as a result of the proposed 53, The proposed amendments to Berth 52 comprise the kltowing; Rotatbn of Berth 52 and all assodated elements including Ro-Ro jetty (288m), linkspan structure to allow Wo-Uer access to the Ro-RO ferries, ramp structure to acoess the upper linkspan tier, and, reinford concrete bankseat for the linkspan by approximately 8 degrees (clac~); Installation of a new power ouHet for Shlp to Shore Power which will be fed from the proposed substabion adjacent to the proposed parking and set down area, and; I Construction of a new piled quay wall structure approximately 52m in length to ammadate the llnkspan structure associated with Berth 52 and to provide additional operafinal quayslde SF at Berth 49. Berth 50A. Oil Berth Q3 and Oil Berth 04 It is proposed to extend existing Berth 50A to provlde a multi-purpase predominately Lo-Lo Container Vessd berth. The proposed works will involve the infilling of Oil Bsdh 4 and consolidating operations from Oil Berth 4 into 011 Berth 3, Oil Berth 3 will be redesigned as a multi-purpose structum, initially for oil tanker berthing, with future potential use as a container vessel berth. The infitled area will provide additional container terminal storage area, The works will comprise the following elements: Oemolition of the Eastern Breakwater PirHead (which forms part of the Eastern Breakwater Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record 1949002), the southern end of the Eastern Oil Jetty (275sq.m), the Port Operations Building and ancillary structures (GOOsq-m), and the exlsting pilot boat pontoon and gangway; Construction of a new quay wall approximate!y 125m In length extending Berth 50A westwards to provide an overall quay length of approdmately 305m: Construction of a new quay wall providing an ovemll quay length of approximately 239m in front of Oil Berth 3; Stablsatlon of the misting quay wall at Jetly Road through the constnretion of a new quay wall in front of existing Jetty Road quay approximately 120m long; Installation of quay and deck furniture including crane rails, fenders, mooring bollards and emergency ladders. Dredglng of a berthing pocket to a standard depth of -11 .Om CO to Berth 50A; and; Dredging of a berVling pocket to a standard depth of -13.0m CO to Oil Berth 3; Infilling of Oil Berth 4 and construction of a new plled reinforced concrete deck (20,000sq.m) which indudes works to the Eastern Breakwater (Dublin City tndustria! Heritage Rewrd 19- 09- 002); Dredaina and Oi~osalWorks It is noted that under ABP Ref. 29N.PA0034 the naviaation channel. including a portion adjamnt to the current application red line boundary, has permission to be deepened from -7.8m CD to -io.om CD. It has been advised, within the application documentation, that the dredging scheme commenced in October 2017 with dredging activity taklng place withln the navigation channel and fairway wlthh Dublin Bay. The applicant has set out that In order to fadlitate the safe navigation and turning of vessels of up to 240m in length. and the expected increased frequency of sailings, channel widening works will be required to the south of the existing navigation channet, which woutd be carried out vla dredging works. It is noted that the loading and dumping of the dredged material will be subject to separate consents including a Foreshore Licence from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG) and a Dumping at Sea Permit, which is required to be obtained from the Environmental Proteetion Agency (EPA). Unified Few Terminal It is also proposed to provide a Unified Ferry Terminal, at the eastern end of the port, to facilitate Irish Ferries, Stena Line, P&O and other seasonal operators. Tho existing operations In this area will be relocated to the westem end of the port. The area at the eastern end of the port currently includes facilities for trafflc and passengers both within the International Ship and Part Facifw Security (ISPS) restricted area and areas outside the restricted area where public access is possible. It is proposed to relocate all public access b the perimeter of the site leaving the internal area free far unified port operatbns. The proposed area will comprise approximately 34.4 hectares of hardstanding space and is envisaged to be used in a 'Mbk mannef, being generally split into staging areas for accompanied hewgoods vehlcles (HGVs), accompanied cars and unampanied traikrs. In order to facilitate the propused Unified Ferry Terminal, permission Is sought for the existing shctures within the site, totaling ~.3,5?6sq.m,including Terminal 5 Building, Terminal 5 check-in, Terminal 5 booths as well as a number of other structures. Developer: Dublin Port Company I I Members in Attendance: Janice Boylan Christy Burke Joe Costello Mary Fbpatrick Anthony Flynn Gary Gannon Janet Homer Neasa Housigan Seamas McGrattan Cdm O'Raurlre Cleran Perry Nial Ring Mark Sherlock Allison Gilliand John Lyons made The appliition was noled by he elected members and no additional relation to the subject application or the submitted repot i DCC Ref: PARTXI0024 ABP Ref: ABP -304888-19 Submission under Won37E(4) of the Pfa amended in relatlon to the proposed devel Esotern Oil Jetty, Dublin Pa Berths 6OA, 50N, 60S, bl,51 Dublin I and 3. Requirements ofthe Planning Authdty 11 11 The progoal mmprislng development at Oil Berth &Hy Road and Bmkwter Road South, and at A, 49, 52, 53 and associated brminsl yards has hen dwelogrnent has themfore kenmad Dublin Clty Counell, as the Plannlng Authorib for tYe located is obliged to prepare and submit to the IS an the effects of the proposed dsveloprnent on smtsrinabk dwdoprnent of the area. S37E to members of the authority and seek the views development before submitting any report b An Bard Plmslla. Deserlptron of Proposed Devetopment and scope of this report;I I Site LocatIan The promdevalopment wwld be locmted within Dublln Fort, annel and Dubtin Bay. Dublin Port forms a setfedentity Mtedb the east of subject application site is cbmprisad of a portion prf lands located b the -st of the along the north side of the River Liiey. Oubln Port is bound to the west by East Wall Road and East ti South by East Wall Road, to tha nwth by the Tdka Way and to the east by Dublin and hewrrwnding area an mainly chamcbrisecl by Industrial and port-related la area to the west is &mWby mm&l uses including the 3 Arena (Point De el as well as student housing and residential developments. The lands to the no largely Industrial In character with residentla1 beyond at Clontarf. To the south lies, sc mdnly port-related uses and public utilities Including the Poolkg elstrfcity generatin skwater treatment plant I Them are thme min vehicular saws poink b the P~R€state mads and junctions. The Brst access palnt Is via Prcrmenad~ Tunnel and East Wall Road, while the second and Wrd awss of the Port Estate along East Wall Road at Alexandra Road historic entrance to Alexandra Bash West and Notth Wall Road in the vicinity of the Point Roundabout and We East proposed Development The propowd development seeks to provide fatho folovring at dblr) P+ A new R*Ro jetty (Berth 53) for ferries up to 240m in north of the pees fairway and south and parallel to the boundary of he Tolka Eably SPA (0040241; A reoentatlan of hth52 permitted under An Bod I I A knghening of an existing river berth (WA) b provlde the Container Freight Terminal with additional capacity to handle larger container ship. These works will Include the infilng d the basln east of Oil Berth 4 on the Eastern Oil Jetty. t The redevelopment of 011 Berth 3 as a future deepwater container berth for the Container Freight Terminal. This would include the change of use of the berth horn petroleum importation to container handlng. 0 Consolidation of passenger terminal buildings, dcmoliion of redundant structures and buildings, removal of mneaing roads and reorganisation of aceess mads to hcrease the area of land for the transit storage d Ro-Ro freight unlk. Barn The applicant has set out that Bern 53 will be used predominantly for the berthing of Ro-Ro ferries and will accornmodab ferries up to 240m in length. The proposed works include the construction of a new Ro-Ro jetty structure of approximately 406m in overall length to accommodate a new river berth. As per the public notices, the development will also consist of the following: Construction of 8 no. reinforced concrete mooring dolphins on tubular steel piles; Construction of a new linkspan structure to allow Wtier access to the Ro-Ro fetries; Construction of a new ramp slmture ta access the upper linkspan trer; Constnretlon of a new deck structure to allow access to the lower linkspan tier and dolphins; Construction of a reinforced concrete accesdmaintenance route to the dolphins; Construction of a reinforced concrete bankseat for the linkspan; Dredging of a berthing packet to a standard depth of -1O.Om CD; Installationof scour protection mattresses to provide slope stabilisation and scour protection to the dredged berthing pocket Installation of a wash protection structure to the north line of the 406m jetty structure; Installation of jetty furniture including visual screening barriers, fenders, mooring bollards. handrails and an automated mooring system; lnstallation of a power outlet far Ship to Shore Power which will be fed from the proposed substation adjacent to the proposed parking and set down area. Berth 52 This berth will accommodat8 the bow-to and stem-to berthing of a wide ranne of ferries up to 240m in length, which was granted planning permission, under An Grd Pleandla &f. PL~~N.PAOOM,but is required b be repositioned as a result of the proposed development of Berlh 53. The proposed amendments to Berth 52 comprise the follawing: Rotation of Berth 52 and all associated elements including Ro-Ro jetty (288m), linkspan structure to allow two-tier access to the Ro-Ro ferries, ramp structure to access the upper linkspan tier, and, reinforced concrete bankseat for the linkspan by appmximaWy 9 degrees (dockwise); Installation of a new power outlet for Ship to Shore Power which will be fed from the propased substation adjacent to the proposed parking and set down area, and; Consbudon of a new piled quay wall structure approximately 52m in length to ammodate the linkspan structure associated with Berth 52 and to provide additional operational quayslde space at Berth 49. 8 It Is proposed to extend existing Berth 50A to provide a multi-pwpose predominately Lo-Lo Container Vessel bwlh. The proposed works will involve the infilling of Oil Berth 4 and cansdidating operations from Oil Berth 4 into Ol Berth 3.011 Berth 3 will be redesigned as a multi-purpose shcture, hblly for oil tanker berthing, with future potential use as a container vessel berth. The infilled area will provide additional container terminal storage area. The works will comprise the following elements: w Demolition of the Eastern Breakwater Pier Head (which forins part of the Eastern Breakwater Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record 19UW02), the southern end of the Eastern Oil Jetty (275sq.m), the Port Operations Building and ancillary structures (BOOsq.m), and the existing pllot bat pontoon and gangway; Construction of a new quay wall approximately 125m In length extending Berth 50A westwards b provide an overall quay length of approximately 30Sm; Construction of s new quay wall providing an overall approximately 239m in front of Oil Berth 3; Stabilisation of the existing quay wall at Jetty Road thro$h s c nstruction of a new quay wall in front of existing Jetty Road quay approximately 120m Installation of quay and deck furniture including crane mooring bollards and emergency ladders. oredging of a berthing pocket to a standard depth of -H.pm CD 0 Berth 504 and; Dredging daberthing pocket to a standard depth of -13.0m CD o Oil Berth 3; r Infilling of Oil Berth 4 and construction of a new piled re/n concrete deck (20,000sq.m) which includes works tothe Eastern Breakwater [Dubtin Uity ndu trial Heritage Record 19- 09- 002); Y _Dredqinn and Dls~osalWorks It is noted that under ABP Ref. 29N.PA0034 the navigation current applimtion red line bundary, has permission to be has been advised, within the application documentation, commenced in October 2017 with dredging activity taking place within the within Dublin Bay. The applicant has set out that in order to facilitate the to 240m in length, and the expected increased required to the south of the existing navigation It is noted that the loading and dumping of including a foreshore Licence from the (DHPLG) and a Dumping at Sea Permit, Protection Agency (EPA). Unified Ferrv Terminal It is also ~mooseclto ~rovidea Unified Fern Terminal, at the easterrl en a of the port, to facilitate Irish Ferries, ~bialine, P&O and other seasohal operat&. The ex rations in this area will be relocated to the western end of the port. The area at the easte e Port cumenW includes facilities for traffic and passengers both within the International FacilW security (ISPS) restricted area and areas outside the restricted area where pub1 relocate at1 public access to the perimeter of the site leaving operations, The proposed area will comprise approximately 34. is envisaged to be used in a *flexible manner", being generally s heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), accompanied cars and unacxom proposed Unified Ferty Terminal, permission is sought for the site, totaling c.3,576sq.m, including Terminal 2 Building, Terminal 5 sheds , Terminal 1 car check-in booths as well a Documentation I I The following doarmentation is included with the application: a lull?et of d 'ngs, an EwironmsntPl Impact Assessment Report, Nablra Impact Statement, and a plann~ngrep with appendices which address the following: P a) MP2 Project: Project Rationale b} Description of Port Operations c) Community Gain Proposal Planning Hlstory i I Ii As pan of the current application, the applicant has p setting out the Planning History within Dublin Port since 2014. which has been ABP Ref. PL 29N.PA0034: In July 2015 planning permission was granted by An 80rd Pleanala under sedan 37E of the Planning and Development Acts, for the redevelopment of Alexandra Basin and Berths 52 and 53 together with associated works in Dublin Port including the dredging of the LIffey approach channel. The permitted development may be broken into 3 no. parts: works to Alexandra Bash, works to Berth 52 and 53, and works to tho Llffey Channel, Alexandra Basin: Excavation and restoration of historic Graving Dock No. 1; Infilling of Graving Dock No. 2 (6,055sq.m); Demolition of the bulk jetty (3,200sq.m); North Wall Quay extension (21,700sq.m); Extension of Alexandra Quay West (A30m); Construction of a new Ro-Ro jetty (273m) and 3no. Ra-Ro ramps; and Dredging of 470,QOQrn.c~of contaminated material, to a depth of -1O.Om CD over an area of 194,000m.c~within the redweloped Alexandra Basln, and its remedimtion. Berth 52 and 53: Omdltion of existing Berths 52 and 53; Construction of a jetty at Berth 52 (500sq.m); Concrete Ddphln at Berth 63 (500sq.m); The construction of; - New river berth at Berths 52/53 (300m); - New 75m mooring jetty at new river berth; - New 40m long mooring jetty to extend existing Berth 49 (50m long); Infilling of the Terminal 5 Ro-Ro basin (45,850sq.m); Raiing of existing Iwlsby 1.4m over an area of 95,OOQsq.m; and - Dredghg of new river berth to -1O.Om CD. Ciffey Channel: Conrkucth of a mama protection structure to a on the south side of the river channel; and a length of 220117 Dredging of the shipping channel to a depth East link bridge, to a location in the vicinlly d to the east of Re ABP Ref. PL 29N.PAOOOT me Gateway Project which was a submission under Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 was refused permission Pleanbla. R proposed an extension of 21 hectares of landfill to the east of the Port in an SPA. l t provided for both additional open container storage and handing facilities and berths. It did not cater for cruise ships. The propored development was refused permission for the followind rea bn: 'The proposed develapmenl is partly wiibin the South Tolke Es/umy proposed Specla/ Pmtectidn Area (,SPA), designated under the Birds basis ofthe submissions made in miation to the proposed deveIdpment, it is con$idmd th8t a. The signikanm of the permanent loss of wetiand propos8d development has not been clearly or b. The full exlent of long-term changes to the impacts on the benthic food #source wifhtn changes genemted by the proposed and; c. The signihance of the fie pSPA has not d. The &nIfTcance of the deveIopment has not been adequately established, I Accordingly, fie Board Is not satisfied that fhe proposed not adversely affect the integn'ly of the South Dublin Bay and River that it would not adversely affect the natura! heritage of Dublin and sustainable deveIopment of the area, " - Ref., I PI. Ref. Planning Permission granted for the development of an additisnal approach and ramp in 3176119 addifon to oKce and staff facilities building at Berth 49. I I PI. Ref. Planning permission was granted on 6th June 2019 of an existing ESB 4250118 Substation (approx. 25sq.m and 3.2m and construction of new ESB Substation building (approx. Crosbids Yard, Dublin Porl. I PI. Ref. Planning Permission granted for Ihe upgrade of 363811 8 consolklatud vehicle check-in facilities and eking and circulation arrangements. The proposed development also inc ision of State SefVices facility for control and inspsdlons of passengers a I PI. Ref, Planning Permission granted for the removal of plinqs, fences and vegetation etc; new 328911 8 pavement construction including underground dralnage and electricity infrastructure; 2 no. CClV poles (18m high); new lighting (including 2 no. light ng corumns 30m high and 10 no. lighting columns 12m high); new 4m high secuflty ena ion western and southern boundaries; new 7.2m high flrewall on the eastern boun lary and; a 5m sliding gate as fire access on the southeastern comer of the site. All deva lopr~entto take place on a site approx. 0.3 hectares. The applicatjon Is for a 10-year planning permission. The development 1s located on a Former Calor Site, Bieakvrater Road Morth, Dublin Port, Dublin I. I planning Pemissbn gmafor the detn0litiOn of a single slo*ey oRiC8 building pi. ~~f. and 3540118 (7~q.m);mdntenance shed building (84osCl.m); knfom~n~b tank (42sq.m); room building; and all a~SOCb1.d geneml site olePTBRCB.The devel0pment aim amprises hard ~urncingto pmvide a ~rdfor stom =*nl of we sib The pmpo& developmmt shall facilihI0 the GOnsolidag~nof Calor activities within the port lands. PI, ~*f, ph~ingpermission granted for the upgrade of access to the Dublin Port OperaGonr 3314118 Centre and the Dublin Ferryport Terminals (DFT). p~ ~~f~ Plannhg ~emisslongranted for the wnstructian of a vehicle senice1 maintenance 314318 $dib and gummodation contained in one building (appro%.W6sq.m) hmrpcrating vehicle se~lcalmahtenancebays, a two-Story 0- area of 280aq.m ~ffi~,medngllraining room, canteen and changing ma, toilets, building Agnage. Associated site works including fencing, 55 no. car parking spms, reconfiguration, and widening of existing entrancedexits and connection to existing services on Tolka Quay Road. The subjed slte is located to the north of and adjacent to the MP2 site boundary. PI. Ref. Planning Permission granted for fhting dock sections (pontmns) with an area of 4216117 c.321sq.m, access wallway and removal 04 internal shctural and infrastructural elements induding vegetation, plinths, knees and bollads; new access roadway. The pontoon shall provide enhanced docking facilities for tug boats aperating in the port. PI. Ref. Planning Permission granted for the demolition of 3 no, existing bulldings comprising a 2429117 blockwork structure of c. 283sq.m, a tempray modular structure d c. 303sq.m and a portal frame shed building of cc.1 P2sq.m and removal of all structural and infrastnrctural elements, vegetation, plinths, fences etc. A new concrete surface treatment is to be provided across the entire site, The new yard facility includes CCW, new lighting and new appmx. 4m high-security fence to northern, eastem and southern (Tolka Quay Road) boundaries. The development also includes the closure of the existing (eastern) vehicular entrance and widening of the existing western entrance to provide a 12m sliding gate on Tolka Quay Road. PI. Ref. Planning Permission granted for the construction of a two-story operations building of 2199H7 432sq.m, an ESB substation of 21.8sq.m with andllary transtomer and generator and slte clearance works. The ground fkar of the proposed operations building of 216sq,m will accommadate welfare facilities, supenrisors control rm,conference room, elecbic switch room and stores. The flrst floor of 216sq.m will contain the company offices. PI. Ref. Planning permission granted for works to the port's private Internal road network and 3084116 includes works on public roads at East Wall Road, Bond Road and Alfie Byrne Rd. as The development includes inter alia: amended Construction of new mads and enhancements to existing mads within the Dublin by PI, Port estate ndhof Rivet Liffey; Ref. Construction of enhanced landscaping and amenity route along the northem 268411 7 boundary; Construction of new pedestrian and cycle overbridge and underpass at Promenade Road: * Ancillary ccJnsVucbon Wrks, induding site clearance, demolitions, emworks, pavement COnstrucfion, oclnst~~tionof verges, modifications to accesses, Construction of new and amended drainage services, diversion and installation of udll@se~ices, boundary works, installation of road markings and signs and accommodation works. PI* Ref. Phnning Permission granted forthe retention of development fp. altarations lo P~~~OUSI~ 2034116 3r'nMpermissions under P.A Reg, Ref. 231W15 and P.A. &g. Ref. 3022/15 and consists of: (a) On the Promenade Road frontage: a 4m high fewand a 9m Mde roller access gab- [b) On the eastern side: added fencing to the exisUng boundary wall to bring it an overall height of 4m. (c) On the No.2 Branch mad frontage: a gm wjde mlkr access gab and 4m hiah fence. (el On the western side: a 4m high fen-. PI. Ref. Planning Permission granted for (a) the removal ofla Road, Dublin Port, Dublin 3 and replacement with a dm high fence. (b) me erection of new 4171high fences in place of defective or ina Is fpncing on three sides of the site, [c) the incorporation of the site Into the adj lc iated to the east and [dl the construction of new reinford concrete surfacing ~placame~tdrainage and water system and associated ancillary works. PI. Ref. Planning P0rmi~~ibngranted fur the retocation of st ng vehimlar and pedestrian 259611 5 entrances off Breakwater Road South to a new ,ff ~reabterRoad south, alterations to the existing layout of the road. This has been imptemented by he OPC.- I I PI. Ref. ~iainin~Permission granted for the erection of neb cing fixed to the existing 2310115 boundary walls to bring the overall height of the bounca 4m high fences In place of existing defective or inaj erection of new replacement gates to a height of 4m, on of 16 no. 30m high bhang masts and luminaries, the incarporalion of 3 ,Bnnchbead South (a prMroad) into the adjoining quayside goods handling area, the - nstruetion of new menforced concrete surfacing and new replacement drainage cdJbbr supply system and PI. Ref. previougly approved panning permission, The modifications will consist of the following: 1. Redesignation store Jet A 1IKerosene instead of Ethanol; 2. Re-designation of T408) to store ethanol instead of unleaded gasoline (ULG); 3. 6 to be lcmted in one Bund instead of two bunds; 4. Tanks tanks with a single bund wall instead of single-SW tanks of the 3m high secondary containment (inner) the height of walls from 3m to 2m. will reduce the storage capacity of all hydracarbons will be unchanged. Policy Context I I I' Plannlnn Order S,I, No. 57 of 201 9 In February 2019, the Minister for Public Expenditure and of the impending withdrawat of the United Kingdom from the European Union, Development Act 2000, Section 181(2)(a) Order No. 1, 2019 [S.I. No. 57 of the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and the Davelmrnent Re~ulations,2001 shall not apply to the ~ninistkby the diceof Public Works. I I li The locations and descriptions of the development are set art in &e r h ule indudad within the order. The order relates to development on the following sites: I t l Former Cmsbie's Yard at Crosbles Yard, Talka Quay Rosy, Dublin 1, DO1 KTT3; Former Storem site at Tolka Quay Road (site bounded by South to the east and by Promenade Road to the north), Dublin Port, Dublin 1. It is noted that both of these sites are located within the apptication for the proposed development. flatitional Port Policv 2013 The National Ports Policy 2013 divides porls into three categories tier mnsisting of three Tier 1 Port5 of National Significance, which indudes Dublin PM. "The continued comme11cI~Idemlopmen t of the three Ports d of National Ports Pdicf and goes onto state that 'The care principles unde@nning Na Wn &mpany's IWaste@lan and the Port is e key strategic objective af Natmnal Ports Pdfcy. " s* Proiecl Ireland 2040 National Planning Framework (NPF). published in July 2018. Is the primary articulation d spatial, planning and land use policy in Ireland. The harework & based on directing development lo exkllng settlements rather than lowing the mntlnual expansion and sprawl of clties and toha The NPF confirms that the role of Tier 1 ports (which include Dublin Port) will be considered in tandem with long-term hfmshctuual requirements as part of the Regional Spatla1 and Economic Strategy and Metropolltan Area Strategic Plan processes through National Policy Objectbe 40 which states: 'Ensure Ma$ the sbategk developmen&mqukments of Wr 7 and Tk2 Porfs, ports of regbnal significanceand maI/er h8rb0~~~are addms~ed as pall of Regional Spaual and Econank Shtegbs, melmpdihn an8 and ciWIcwnty deveCopment plans, to ensure he effective growth am9 sustainable dewhpm%ntofthe city mghs and mgbal and rural amas". The Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy (RSES) for the Eastern and Midland Region including the Metropolitan Area Spatiat Plan (IMASP) for Dublin was published in June 2019. The RSES Is a strategic plan and investment ff8mrk to shape the future development of the region to 2031 and beyond. Relevant reglonal Policy Objectives guiding the development of parts, and spec-Wlly Dublin Port, within the RSES indude: RPO 8.21: The Eastern and Midland Region Authority will support the role of Oublin Port as a Port d National Sign-Wnce (Tier 1 Port) and its continued commercial development, including limited expansion and improved road access, induding the Southern Port Access Route. Dub ' 'fhe Dublin City Devefupment Plan is supportive of Oublin Port, recognishg the important role it plays In the economy and development of Dublin Clty and Region and Is expressed in the policies and objectives d the Development Plan. The contexl is set out in chapter 4 which states that Dublin City Council fully supports and recognises the Important national and reglonal role of Dublin Port in the eoonomic life of the city and the region and the eonsequent need in ecanomlc competitiveness and employment terms to facilitate port activities which may involve port dwdopment or relacakn in the bnger term. In addition to this high-level support, Development Plan mnbins a number of policies and objectives facllitatIng Dublin Port operalions and activities, including: SC9: To support and mmgnise the important national and regional role of Dubtin Port in the wnomic life of the city and region and to facilitate port activities and development, having regard to the Dublin Port Masterplan 2012 - 2060. CEE23 (iii): To reagnise that Dublin Port is a key economic resource, Including for cruise tourism, and to have regard to the policies and objectives of the Dublin Port Masterplan. Section 7.8.3 of the City DMloprnent Plan also ncognises the role of Cruise Shipping and Retail for Dublin City and sets out that Sinw 2010, between €35 million and (50 mllion has been generated for the local economy through cruise traffic. Section 16.21 notes that, in assessing proposals for the Dublin Part area, the plannlng authority wll have regard to the fdlowin~: Recognition of tbeknporfant role of Dublin Port in the economic life of the city and the region and the consequent need in economic and employment terms to facilitate port development; Periphery of me port area facing residential areas to be designed and landscaped to mlnimiw the impact of its industrial character Impact an nature conservation, recreation, and amenity use, and other environmental considerations, induding having regard b the designation of Dublin Bay as a UNESCO biosphere and ather environmental designations such as Special Area of Consewation (SAC) and Special Proteetion Area (SPA); Protection of the amenities of residential and Design criteria indudhg Facilitating plans to make Dublin s tourism facilities in the port and wider citylregion. Zoning Under the current Dublin CiiDevelopment Plan as well as those adjoining if are largely zoned Z7 and creation of industrial uses and facilitate located within the 29 ArnenityfOpen Space LandsMreen which seeks to preserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and Port-related industries and facilities an land-uss zoning objective. Section 14.8.7 of the plan notes that the majority of lands sikuated in Dublin Port, with the primary uses being those which can result in which would not be acceptabfe in other areas, and can result in through the planning pmsto safeguard adjoining residentla1 amenities. The 29 (AmenityIOpen Space LanddGreen Network) zoned lands along €heouter perimeter of the Port, providing a green buffer along the northern boundary. The City Development Plan permits Open space uses in principle on facilities and CultumVrecreationaI buildings and uses are listed as being 8Uilf #el8899 The Development Plan to protect and enhance the special the city's built and natural heritage. Policy CHCOlO of the Dublin Ctty Development industrial herllage and DubCin City d Local Area PIans (LAPS) and the assessment of planning the DCIHR in accordance wltA A~hit8cturaIHeritage (NIAH) suwey of out in Section f 1.1.4 of this chapter". There are no protected structures located within the application it is noted that the Eastern Breakwater is included h the Dublin City Industrial Natural Hediage The Development Plan states hat with the introduction of the EU drd Di hive (791409EEC) and the EU Habitats Dit&ve (4W21EEC) came the obligation to establish th Nayn 2000 newof sites d highest biodiversity importance for rare and threaten4 habitats and s eci ' across the EU. The aim of both directives is to maintain and, where necessary, restore the favora le nsewation status of natural habitats and species across Europe, and in his way to conhibutel to us inable development and to promote the maintenance of Europe's biodiversity. The following polices a cbnsidered to be relevant to Dublin City Council: 0123: 70protect flora, fauna and habitats, whiGh haw been ii 10 end 1d Habitats Di&ive, Bids Direcfive, W#life Acts 197b2012, the 201 5 S. 1 Nu- 356 of 2015, Eumpeen CommunIt/es(Bids and Nalumi GR4: 'To aonsem and manage a/I NatumI Heritage A~B~s,Special A as f ons sew at ion and Special Prvtedhn Amss designabd, or pmposed b be designated, by 1 fh De ariment of Arts, Miltage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs: SEVESO Directive Sites 4 1 Appendix 12 d the plan sets out polieles in relation to This notes that Directive 2012118lEU (known as the SEVESO Ill directive) was account changes in EU legidation on the classification of inlormation in this regard. The directive was transposed into Irish 2015 Chemicals Act (Control of Major Accident Hazards 2015. This directive came into effect on 1 June 2015, Tier and 7 no. and Lower Tier Seveoo establishments listed within the general vkin'ty of the MP2 Project. $128: 'To have regard lo Ule provisions d the Major Anidents Directive (2012/18/EU),mIatin$ Lo Iln, con^ of major eccM8nt hhazanfr involving d~ngemussubslsnces and Ra obpdhas an to prevent major accidents and limit the consequences of such accidents. Dub*, City Counoll will have regard to Me pmvJsbns of the dimdive and mmmendafions of the HSA h the assessment of 34 pldnninq epplicatidns located on or Impacted by such sibs.' Other Relevant Local and National Plans OuMin Port MastemIan 2012-2040 The Dublin Port Masterplan is a non-statutory plan, prepared and formally adopted by he Board of Dublin Port Company on 26th January 2012 and reviewed and updated in 2018. It sets out a vision for future operations at the Port by referenee to developments in merchandise trade and key sectors of the emnomy, It also examines the existing land utilisation at Dublin Port and suggests some options for future development at the Pott It presents plans for the future sustainable growlh of the port including the reconfiguration of Ro-Ro facilities. the development of new cruise facilities and the provision of additional berthage facilities. Most relevant b the current proposal the application site is situated within Area C: Unified Ro-Ro Ferry Terminal and Area D: Container Terrnlnal. the identified infrastructure development option for Area C: Unified Ro-Ro Ferry Terminal is: 'To create a Unitkc/ Feny TewinaI which would lncorporete the existing Temlnals I, 2 and 5". In doing this: Existing internal roadways would be eliminated and existing bulldings would be removed to mate an additional three hectares of usable terminal area. A new single set of ingates would be provided north of the existing terrninal areas accessed from the new Promenade Road Extension to be built as part of the project to redevelop the Potis internal road network. A new jetty would be built at the eastern end of the Port to provide a fifth Ro-Ro berth A new feny terminal building would be provided to the north overlooking the Tolka Estuary. In developing the new Unified Ferry Terminal, necessary State MlWes would be provided for border controls by a range of State agenck". In relation to Area C: Unified Ro-Ro Ferry Terminal, the identified infrastructure development options is to provide for a considerable expansion of the already existing container terminal both in terms of berthage and, more particularly, storage land for the transit storage of imported and exported containers from bLacontainer ships. The option includes: The removal of existing buildings on the terminal to provide additional transit storage capacity for containers The cessation of an exisCing empty container depot operation The infill of OH Berth #4 fhe reaonstnrction of Oil Berth #3 to faeilite its reuse as a container berth as when it is no longer required for petroleum imports f he extension of the exlstlng river berth (Berth 50A) The development of a nearby 2.8 hectare yard overlooking the Tolka Estuary as a back area for the transit storage of containers Envlrcrnmental impact Assessment Report -=& rt A full Envimnmenl Impact Assessment Report acmmpanies the subject application. The subject development falls within Section (e) of Annex II of Be Directive 2014/52/EU (the EIA Mm*ve)which relabs to the "Constmctlondmds, harboun andpod inshlaht?~,jbduding Ashing h8rbo~~s(prnjmis not induded in Annex 0". The appfi~nthas set out that weening, in resped of the MP~/Pr ject !was undertaken and it was determined that the thresholds set out in the EIA Directive, and a pli ble Irish Regulations, were exceeded, and therefore an ElA would be required to be unde ke by the relevant competent authorities. Directive 2014/52/€U includes a requlrernent for a dev lop r b prepare and submit an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR), to the competent4 uth 1 rity. The EIA Directive 2014!52/EU, (the Directive) and Section 172 of tti~ Act 2000 {as amended) require that an assessment of environmsntaf ehds competent authority -which in this instance is An Bord ~1eanala.l~ to (f) of the Directive sets out the matters to be addressed by the devebperkpplicant in very Cast the E!AR must contain the following; a) A description of the project comprising information on size and any other relevant features of the project; b) A description of the likely significant effects of the f) Any additional The ElAR must also include a list of the experts who have its preparation, The 2011 Directive, as amended, specifies that the ElAR must that may reasonably be required for reaching a reasoned conctusion an the on the environment, taking into account current knowledge and The ElAR has been revlewed with regard 10 the relevant legis/?ti guidance for Competent Authorities. The following comments relate to and are relevant to this Sco~inq Section 5 of the ElAR Non-Technical Summary sets out project the ion and -ping carried out by the Applicant IDesign Team, who met with An Bord Pleanala, various Departments of Dublin City Coundl to identify the issues that are likely to be mostllm uring the Environmental Impact Assessment The applicant has stated that the scoping proce what information should be contained in the ElAR and the most appropriate mechanisms tq assess that information to ensure that all potential impa~bwere adequately identifled an riately mitigated, where necessary. This approeoh is deemed to be satisfactory based on the legislative requirements and k gain a comprehensive understanding of the environmental issu I @ntsnt & Premntion - Issues arising The EIAR was In accordance with, and to comprehensively address th is ,es listed in Sixth Schedule of the Renulations and the requirements of Dlrectlve EIA (2014i5kf U) The ElAR assessed the following issues within the conte'xt of the proposed development: I I I Examination of Alternatives Risk of Major Accidents Biodiversity: Fora and Fauna Soils, Geology and Hydrogealagy Water Quality and Flood Risk No[= and Vibration Material Asset: Traffic and Transportation Material Asset: Costal Processes Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 4 Landscape and Visual Impacts Population & Human Health Wash Cumulative Effects rn The ElAR is laid out in three volumes; the non-technical summary, the report, the supporting appandlces. The Inboductory chapters establish the contea of development and describe the proposal in detail, including the rationale for the development as well as the alternatives considered. Content of Chaoters and Assessmea Cha~tersI- 3; These introductory chapters provide the background information to the existing environment within the development slte and within the surrounding area. A detailed description of the development is provided and outlines each element of the proposal. Further to this, the background and rationale for the project have been set out whkh detalls the growing demands upon the port, both in relation to cargo and passenger transit. The informaticin provided by the applicant in these initial chapters is cansidered adequate. Chapter 4 - Alternatives considered; With regard to the consideration of alternatives to the proposed development, the ElAR states that the "The MP2 Pmjject is a key element of the infm&mdumI development d Dubtin Pod which is being developed in accordan# with the Dublin Port Company's Mast8tpIan to increase Its capc/iy to 77.2m gross tonne$ by 2040. The MP2 Project d@ns with the Mast8tplan's fundamental approach of maxlmising the utilisafion of Dublin Pofls brownfield lands rather than seeking to build new additidnal Port facilities at a gmenhld kcation to deIiv8r this increased capacity" Alternatives were wnsidered at both strategic and project levels. In regard the strategic level the altemathres consider4 included r Option 1: No Port Expansion (This option Is stated as representing the strategic 'do-nothing' scenario) Option 2: Optimise Main Port Lands (Proposed Development): Option 3: Optimiss Main Port Lands and Increase Port Lands (this option includes an expansion eastwards Into Dublin Bay previously refused ABP Ref, PL 29N.PA0007): The potential strategic options were assessed against a technical requirement of achieving expansion in throughput of the port of 77.2m gross tonne by 2040. It was determined that only those potential options hvolvlng optimlsing the main port lands and increasing port lands would be capable of delivering the required capacity to meet growth projection. The selected strategii alternative (Option 2), incorporates an MP2 Project which implements the reviewed Masterplan's fundamental approach of providing capacity in Dublin Port for the 77.2 million gross tonnes projected by 2040 by maximising the utllisationof Dublin Port's brownfield lands and new additional inland Port fadlltles, rather than seeking to expand eastwards into Dublin Bay. In relation to the Project Level Alternative Options assessment the submitted ElAR sets out the design progression and alternative considerations fur each element of the proposed development, including a 'do nothing scenarla'. The process for selection of the preferred optlon was described h detail and justified. This approach is considered to be satisfactory, It is noted however that Parks and Landscape Sewices have raised queries in relation to the exploration of alternatives for the dredged material, which will be produced from the channel widening and deepening operations. This is addressed in greater detail in Chapter 8 below. Cha~ter6- Risk of Makr AccidenfS Chapter 6 of the UAR describes the assessment undertaken of the e $I individual and societal risk presented to Ule MP2 Project. In light of the scope of the application nd lie nature of the activities that will take place upon the application site and the nature of the drro ndl 3 environment, the applicant has set out the most slgnitcant risks of major accidents and disaser are associated with the pmpmed development. The assessment includes the 1O COMAH establish e ts tiich are located wlthin Dubh Port as well as other, non-COMAH direct and indirect major acc'S en and dlsaster risks. The applicant has set out an assessment of the proposed ti relation to the pmposed development compliance with Health and Safety Authority's is land-use planning guidelines. It is also noted that application was referred to the has not been reviewed by the Planning OPficers of Dublin City Council. I The applkant has Eoneluded that fran a COMAH perspective, the ote 6al direct and indirect major accident and disaster risks arising from the proposed development u d satisfy the HSA's COMAH land use planning guidance. It has also been concluded that other no !COMAH direct and indirect major accident and disaster risks arising from the proposal are not sig ifi nHy different from the current risks within the port. Having regard to the location of the site within Dublin Port, the es and the overall site context it is considered that the assessment of the likely sig is reasonable and no significant adverse impacts are anticipated. As set out in the rep sponse and input of the Health and Safety Authority would be key in determining the d conclusions reached within Chapter 6 of the subject EIAR. I A biodiversity appraisal of the direct and indirect significant effects' of MP2 Project on biodiversity has kencompleted. It comphes a n(lm assessments on different specialist subject areas of ecology and has been written by I It mntains assessments of: Terrestrial Biodiversity i Bentbk Biodiversity and Fisheries r Marine Mammals r Avian Blodiverslty i Designated Sites (other than European sites) Parks and Landscape Swices have reviewed Chapter 7 of the with the findlng of the report. It has been noted however that the low! importance for wildlife, particularly pollinators, which will b by the proposed development, In this regard it is requested that a) sites be restoration of native flora and b) the establishment of new planting provide for local pollinators. Terrestrial EAammais While olter Is not found in the ternstrial component of the MP2 - including juveniles - have been reported in several repeated surveys by DCC and River Tolka throughout Dublin City Council administratwe area and up includes otters seen by ESB staff at the section of the Toka next to FaiNiew Therefore, measures along the coastal edge of the proposed Greenway be included for om. Otter also use the Grand Canal Dock, and spraints ranger for south Dublin. Accordingly, Parks and Landscape Plan for the Greenway include specific measures for otter, Atlantk lcalrn~n The ElAR states that the River Lmey is limib for Atlantic salmon (page 7-35, lBE1429/EIAR). applicant proposes cessation of piling page 234 in the NIS) to mitigate disturbance to the dredging atiiity is stated as being carried out during UH) winter months, batween October and March to miugate any impacts on nesting terns and on salmonid migration (NlS, pages 218 6.234). This is wntradictoly. Parks and Landstape Services request that no piling or dredglng during the month of March should be permitted* Harbour WIse Current mame mammal mamationfor Ule proposed development (EIAR 7.4.6.1 page and NIS, 5-72, page 274-275) states that visual sunning for marine mammals (including Harbour Porpoi~s)will only be effective (I)during dayllght hours and (2) in good visibility extending lkm or more beyond the limits of Ule assigned Monitored Zone, whlle (3) sea mditions for effective visual monibring by MMOs are WMO Sea State 4 (=Seaufod Force 4 conditions) or less. Furthermore, NPWS ouidelines (NPWS 2014) state that detection improves considerably below VVMO Sea State 3 {-8eaufort Fwce 3 conditions) and Irish Whale and Dolphin Group preferred protocols for surveying for Hartmur Porpoises is a WMO Sea State (=Beaufort Force 2 conditions), which is due to the smaller size of the animal and the height of its pectoral fin out of the water compared to other cetacea. DCC recommends Uut remedial and mitigation measures for visual scanning of Harbour Porpoises should ke set at WMO Sea State 2 (mBeaufort Force 2 conditions). Common and Grey Seals Cumnt marine mammal mitigation for the proposed development (EIAR 7.4.6.2 page and NIS. 5.7.2, page 274-275) states that visual scanning for marine mammals (including common and grey seals) will only be effectbe (1) during daylight hours and (2) in good visibility extending Ikm or more beyond the limits of the assigned Monitored Zone. while (3) sea conditions for effective visual monitoring by MMOs are WOSea State 4 (=Beaufort Force 4 conditions) or less. Furthermore, NPWS guidelines (NPWS 20'14) state that detection improves considerably below WMO Sea Slate 3 (=Beaufort force 3 condltlons). DCC recommends that remedial and mitigation measures for visual scanning of common and grey seals should be set at WMO Sea State 3 (=Beaufort Force 3 conditions), Avian Bidhrersitv Black GurYlernot While the EIAR states that Black guillemot (Cepphus grille) have not been disturbed by existing ABR works, it also states that the numbers of Black Guillemot In Dublin Port have declined over the period 201 3-201 8 (page 7-83,l BE1429EIAR (from 82 in 2013 to 48 in 2019) (I BE14291EIAR). Black guillemot nesting within the development area make up 14%of the population of We birds in the locality and these proposed development wrks require that guilbmot natural nesting sites are replaced by man-made nesting boxes. It is unclear whether birds nesting close to pik drhlng in natural nesting sites are less exposed to noise and vibratbn compared to sites in man-made structures Ulat may be more exposed to noise and vibrations. While the proposed period of cessation of piling from March until May helps to mitigate disturbanm to the species, monitoring of Black guillemot within the proposed development area should be conducted to ensure there is no disturbance to nesting pairs. Measures are requesbd below. Arctic and Common Tern On page 8 of the EIAR Non-Technical Summary (IBE1429/EIAR), Figure 2-1 Dublin Port Masterplan 2040 (Figure 3) shows the relocation of a tern colony pontoon at area M on the Poolbeg Port Lands. As the Poolbeg area is also being considered for future development works, it is unclear whether the relocated tern colony pontoon wlll have to be moved again as part of any future schemes. The position of the rebcated pontoon should, therefore, be considered and located to a position further than 250m from the site of construction works to duce any potential disturbance to nesting birds. Furthemore, as the bms arrlve into the Dublin Bay area from April and will have chicks on the nest up to the end of July and into August, pontoons should be In posltton and not disturbed between the months of March and September. Clarification is required as to: a) whether or not the Applicant has conducted an analysis of the optimum location{s) for siting of the pontoons and b) if these are permanent locations ot subject to further changes as part of the Master Plan for Dublin Port DCC recommends that the Applicant prwide clarification on the reasons for siting of the pontoons and whether or not these are proposed on a permanent basis. Furthermore, DCC recommends that the Applicant provide clarification that the wntoons will remain in position undisturbed between We months of March and Septemh. BenfhB impacts The proposal will result in the permanent loss of benthic habitat at 011 Berth Basin 4. As this site is as one ecosystem should be required to provide new benthic measures for MP2 project to offset loss of benthic area of habitst The Oil Berth 4 34). The void between the engineered fill material. decline in number of as specially consultation meeting of September 2018 (5-12). Accordingly, DCC requests that the Applicant is to provide an area y ival nt to that which is proposed to be permanently infilled at Oil Berth 4 basin and the void at Oil Be 3 f newly-constructed marine habitat using best available technology by way of a deslgn of artiqci I su aces to be agreed with the NPWS, IF1 and DCC Parks and Landscape Services. Monitoring, of he onstructed marine habitats shall be undertaken by the applicant and reported as part of the Envir nm ntal Management Plan and the outcomes shall be made available by publication using open wces me ads to allow dissemination for use at other sites In Ireland. Cha~ter8 - Sail. Geoloav and Hvdroaadoqv The existing soit, geobgical and groundwater environment T 1 around the proposed devebpment sbwas reviewed by means of a desk study, field ground investigations. The slte is characterised as deposits, and gravels and clays from glacbrs, whlch overlie a Iucally to the site is the South Dublin Bay Special Area of Special Protection Area (SPA), The assessment of the likely effects identified that a associated with the construction and operation of the development which an effect on the geological and groundwater environment and relate to soils on-sib and the impacts on-site workers, South Dublin Bay. Chapter 8 of the submitled ElAR has been reviewed by the Parks set out that Dublin Ci Council has previously raised concerns with Dublin Port on ptanning applications including: Dublin Port regarding the current application. DCCwasapartnerwith thoGSI in the contamination in Dublin City, including Dublin Part, from mat SURGE were included in the previous Clty Development Plan report. DCC will continue to ensure that these impacts are assessed In the applicant has stated is widespread and is part of the from the surveys undertaken by thern(ElAR 8.4.8). The Parks and Landscape Service has set out that it would be the Soils and Geology into context more fully, as the GSI has in terms of assessment to note for each chemical tested if causes for the levels. if these are atypical for Dublin's coastline, if causes due to industrial slte history to explain the Levels. The SURGE report prwides an accbunt of historic causes for several of these at Dublin Pot Section 8.4.8.1 states that 24 no, soil samples were sent for chemlcal analysis far a range of elements and compounds, This included Beryllium. However, there are no results reported far these tats in the EIAR. The GSI SURGE project report (2012) states that 'Berjlliurn concentrations are elevated (above the 90th percentile concentration for Be) In the heavy industry zone in the Dublin port area. Since soils In this area are composed of made ground, it 1s likely that Be levels observed are due to anthmpogenlc oontamlnation. Possible sources d anthropogenic Be in made ground In the docklands area Include coal and ail burning, coal storage, mat fly ash disposal and industrial activity... Exposure to high levels of Be usually oceurs in association with industries which process Be or hazardous waste sites (ATSDR, 2002). Health effects associated with inhaling hlgh levels of Be dust include lung disease and lung cancer (ATSDR, 2002). The general public is not likely to be exposed to such hlgh levels of Be (ATSDR, 2002). Most Be in mil does not dissolve in water and remains bound to the soil. However, some water- soluble forms of Be pose a greater risk to human health than insolubte forms. In general, Be does not accumulate in the food chain" (GSI 2012). Accordingly It has been requested that clarification on the results of the analysis for Beryllium have been requested by the Parks and Landscape Serukes. In relation to the volume of marine sediments proposed for dredging and dumping a sediment ohemistry sampling and analysis programme, confirmed the sediments were not contaminated (EIAR 4-85). Sediment Cell Mainknance technology is proposed for coarser rnaterIals and is eonsidemd to be a sustainable solulion. Disposal at sea is proposed for finer materials. The Marine Institute has been consulted and it is stated that they have no objection to disposal at Burford of this marine sediment as they determine that no biologbl effects are likely for the disposal site. The proposed disposal site (refer to Figure 4.2) is located within Rockabill to Dalkey Island SAC. (p. 123) and could be considered to be an alteration to the SAC. Transport of marine sediment to Burford Bank poses potential risks to the Natura 2000 dtes on Dublin Bay and further monitoring issues. The EPA states (5-13) that the examination d alternative options in the ElAR should examine alternative uses of the dredged material. not only dumping at sea. According to an EPAlClT review, Ireland has a low rate of muse of dredge material in international terms, particularly of fine material, and a range of potential reuse options is examined in this review {Harrington and Smith 2013). DCC is in agreement with the EPA and requests this to be included in the assessment with regard to re-use of fine sediments. Dublin Port has shown a commitment to sustainable development as a partner in the Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere and can demonstrate potential strategies for reuse in other perts in iteland and internationally in this regard. The Parks and Landscape Services have requested that the EIAR include an analysis of alternative uses of the dredged marine sedlment Including finer materials, as an alternative to disposal at sea as waste. Cha~ter9- W ter Qualitu and Flood Risk Assewment -quali.n and ndod risk dudng the construction and operational stages of the proposd development Water QuaMIy: The applicant has set out that the water quality within Dublin Port and Dublin Bay was determined using National monitoring and data collected as part of the Alexandra Basln Redevelopment (ABR) Preject, The likelihood of significant negative impacts on water quality both during construction and operational stages has been assesses and mitigation measures for both stages have been recommended. The assessment sets out that provided the construction and operational phases are implemented, the impact of the proposed development would be imperceptible on the water quality of the receiving waters. Flood Risk The submitted assessment details that a significant portion of the application site is lomted within lhe Flood Zones A & B with the remaining areas in Flood Zone C. ppamdpsrtmbsrcr~whbhwmu hnWpwt and adjtjdnlng me@rs due ~9- imd nwmb- MItwm w$J~wmmin ma- R-an mw!3 hm mqlority of t& slke If st acmd wwe b Wd WWing. Ffl!SB* QU~E~?W&, klfuWr notes in relatkn #uoih.aU~: Sm- the in-e WL pmd ~isnot~~~n~~Bawdoritha , the bwaf air qudl& thfwilalt-m~q~~~~m w writand no ~~~~s&c~~IJ~B#F~~~Bw~~~fit It IS d$Qn&d &&. sitespecific recommendations received from the Alr QualiEy Monitoring and Noise Control Unkof Dubjin City Council. Cha~ter11 - Noise and Vibration The submitted ElAR sets out the likely significant effects from both the construction and operational phases of the development In relation to construction, the report identifies that there is potential for ndse impack from the use of plant and equipment, construction traffic and vibration impacts from certaln oonstruction phase activities [e.g. pillng). The assessment of the operational phase nobe includes an assessment of the noise impact from new planuequipment as well as the Impact assessment of road tralffic changes in the vidnity of the port as a result of the proposed development, It has been set out that the monitoring of noise and vibration monitoring will be carried out durjng both construction and operational phases as well as imflementing noise and vibration abatement measures. The Planning Authority mnslders the f IAR adequately addresses the issues in relation to noise and vibrations. It is also noted that sitespecific recommendations received from the Air Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit of Dublin City Cuuncll. ChaPter 12 Material Assets - Coastal Pmcessw. Chapter 12 of the submitted ElAR assesses the potential impact of the proposed development on the coastal processes in the Dublin Port and Dublin Bay areas, including the tidal regime and the inshore wave climate. The applicant has set out that the current and future coastal processes were assessed using a program d computational modeling. Mitigation measures for both construction and operational phases have been recommended, which if implemented are not likely to have significant effects on coastal processes, flooding or make a significant change to the existing morphology chapter 13 Material Assets - TraWic and Transbartation The Roads and Traffic Planning Division has revlewd Section 13 of the ElAR which relates to he traffic impact of the proposed development. Chapter 3 of the ElAR also relates to the Construction of the proposed development and was also reviewed. A Access to the proposed development will be along with the existing road network in the Port. Proposed amendments to the internal road network to accommodate the new departure areas for HGV's and passengers will be located at the end of Promenade Road Mere segregation of tramc into several lanes will occur. The proposed amendments to the departures and arrivals check-ins will occur at the end of the Promenade Road Extension where the seven departure lanes will be separated into different lane designations. In order to facilitate infrastructure for departures and public access to Terminal 1 the full width available in this area fmm the edge of the State Sewices yard to the west to the edge of the greenway to the east is required. This will prevent installation of the four northbound arrival lanes as consented under the Internal Roads Project with traffic diverted through the State Services Yard. HGV check-in will be facilitated at the proposed six-lane HGV check-in facility at Alexandra Road and the proposed dual use eight-lane check-in facility towards the North East corner of the site. The queue lengths have been estimated based on target check-In times to ensure adequate space is available In advance of the check-in booths to prevent pwheck-in HGV queues from impacting on the public a- a- to the Terminal building or light vehicle access to the dual-use check411 booths. The proposed check-in areas hdude new double-sided check-in bbhewith a canopy provided above for cover. It is proposed to provide three new booths to senrice the six dediwted HGV check-in lanes and an additional four booths to service the eight dual-use lanes, A numbr of pedestrian walkways and an underpass are proposed to bring passengers to Berth 51 and 52 and to the existing Terminal building. Construction Compounds To facilitate construction works, 5 no. ternwary construction compounds have been indicated to be provided over the various phases of development Separate compounds will be used kr different phases of the works. The compounds have been sized to accommodate welfare facilities, site offices and parking, construction plant storage, and materials storage. Each cumpound is located in or immediately adjacent to the relevant wow phase. Phase L7 - WhemAccess Road Thk phase wil take approximaCe!y 6 months to works include the installation of underground services and drawings new access routes to the north side of the site to tie in with the internal road for this construction phase will be htedon the north-eastern end of the along the Alexandra Road Extension. This area is currently being used to Seatruck Ferrles. Phase L2 - Eastern Access Roed This phase of development will take approximately 6 months to commencing In Ql 2027. These works will take place after hefilling of the basin occurs under 29N.PA0034). The extent of works proposed during these phases indudes services and drainage, the cansbuction of the new access mutes to the of an at-grade car park with designated spaces and will also be constructed. The site compound for this most eastern side of the Port on the Alexandra store shipping containers for Seatruck Ferries. Phase L3 - Un&d Ferry Termind Yard This phase of dwdopment will take approximately 12 months to in Q3 of 2027. Works ta be carried out in this phase include the installation of been demolished, installation of road markings, connection upgrade works to the existing Terminal 1 building. The site will be where the compound for Phase L1 is located. Phase L4 - Heritage lnstal~at~on The site compound for Phase L4 will be located in the the site, at the end of the Alexandra Road extension. These to complete, will commence in Q3 2031 and will comprise of the incorporating the masonry blocks recovered during earlier installation of the heritage structures. i In tandem with me wks 10 land as detailed above (Phases ~1-+4), inber of subsequent works (Phases MI446) will occur. Phase MI (Berth 52) will see works commence at the Ll in Q12022 and will compromise of works in and out of the water such of steel pile eombi- walls and cellular sheet pile walls. These wo The site compound far this phase will be shared PhaseM2(8stth53)willcornmenceinQ12025a pleted. The development constructed under Phase M1 will facilitate constnrcti for this phase of development will also be as d in the same area of the port Works in this phas complete, will take place in and out of the water an linkspan structure, dredging of the berth pocket and i tier linkspan. Phase M3(ChannelWidening Works) will oornrnenc L1 is complete. As these works are taking place i not been identified. Phase M4 (Jetty Road) will commence in Q1 2027 when th M3 are completed. This phase will take approximately 12 complete, commencing In Q1 2029 and utilising a site compound to the south of T Road in an area used by Oubtin Ferryport Terminals, Phase M5 (Oil Berth 3) will commenced in Q1 xirnately 12 months. This phase includes works in and out of the water and will shar compound designated for Phase M4. Phase M6 (Berth 50A) will commence after Phase M5 is 15 months, commencing In Q1 20131. Works wilt occur in water during the phase and the sib compound will be located to the south d the d M5 site compound in the OFT terminal area, Construction Tmffiq A draft Cunsfruction Traffic Construction Management Plan has been submitted in Appendix j9-1 of Ule ElAR (Part 3). It is stated that a Traffic Managment Coordinator will oversee and maintain all tram management on the site. Construction traffic will arrive and depart the port via the national road network Within the Oublln Port Estate, traffic will be routed through the existing road network to reach the proposed MP2 Project site boundary. Tnffc within the proposed site will be diverted in a phased manner to ensure the existing facilities at Termlnal 1 and Terminal 2 remain operational with minlmal impacL It is noted that the peak HGV baKc volume will occur Q3 2030. There will be avenge daily traffic over Ulls period of 67 HGV movements per day, based on a Way working week. The peak week within the proposed construction stage will be 44 2030 where on average there will be 81 HGV movements per day. This would incorporate a peak of 17 HGV movements (in and out) per hour between 7 am and 8 am. Mobili Manaqsment Plan An outline MMP has been included in Appendix 19-12 of the EIAR (Part 3). The MMP has been prepared to set out the tv~ed measures which could be adopted by Dublin Port Company (DPC), in liaison with the operatars hthin the MP2 Project, to ensure sustainable transport enabling schemes are avajlable ta staff and vlsitars of the MP2 Project. In the event of a grant of permission, it is stated that the DPC will liaise with the other operators on the site to prwide an MMP for the scheme once complete and operational. Traffic Imoact Assessment The TlA induded within Chapter 13 of the ElAR looked at 2026,2031 and 2040 as the key assessment years; 2028 reflects about ho thirds of the construction works for the MP2 Project being completed; 2031 reflects the substantial completion of the MP2 Project construction works; 2040 is the end of the Dublin Port Masterplan 2040 (reviewed 2018). The TIA elso reviewed misting and permitted commsreiaVmMentiaI developments in the surrounding area, including permitted and propsed infrastructure improvements. It was concluded that these schemes will not be car-based, and have already been incorporated into the assessment by use of the robustly high level of traffic growth rates applied to the non-Port traffic flows. Detailed tram modeling has been carried out on impact of the proposed development on the internal and external road networks. The modeling results demonstrate that the accesses and majority of the permiMed internal road network within Dublin Port have sufficient capacity available to deal with the peak traffic flows even at the end of the Masterplan in 2040, This occurs even with the uplift In Dublin Port Estate trafftc from 2.5% per annum to 3.3%per annum, to which the MP2 Project contributes. The TIA also notes that the proposed development will not impact the potential extension of the Luas as ourrently included in NTAs Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area for 2016-2035. Overall, the TlA concludes that existing, permitted and proposed road network and transportation measures will aceommodate the trips generated by the MP2 Project It states that increased road capacity will be provided on the external road network by the closure of the Port Estate accesses along East Wall Road, and tho dellvery of the Southern Port Access Road (SPAR) MI1 provide further capacity benefits along East Wall Road. It also nabs that the Dublin Port Tunnel and Toll Plaza will have sufficient capacity at 2040 when the MP2 Project is camplete and operational. The Transportation Planning Division is satisfied with the information submitied as part of the ElAR and with the principle of the proposed development overall. Fha~ter14 Cultural Heritaae Ilncludincl Industrial and Ar~haeoloaical~ Industdai: In relation to the Industrial Heritage, the submiW €JAR outtines that the principal cultural heritage feature within the application site is the Eastern Breakwater of Alexandra Basin. The report sets out that the breakwater, which was designed by the Port Engineer Bindon Blood Stoney's and marked the original entrance to the deepwater basin of the Port The heritage importance of the bmahter has been detailed within We EIAR, which states that the design 'earned BIndon BIood Stoney a global reputation and is widely mgatded as an engineering marvel for ifs day. * As part of the currant application, the Pier Head of the Eastern Breakwater will be removed. The who has set out that development area., however, the City indusltial Associates have appraised The Significant' and the Lighthouse SecEon14.5.1 of the submitted ElAR sets out the Heritage Gain are proposed as part of the mitigation measures for the impact of the removal of the extend a Greenway akng the northern perimeter of the Port of the river at the eastern end of the Port operation. The end assessable 'Heritage Zone". An "Induslrial Hedage Reportuprepared by MOLA. The Planning Authority's Conservation Section has and mlo~ltionof the histoic 1P mtuy Bindon considered to accord with best conservation practice and the loss of one of the last surviving significant features of Section 14.5.1 of the submitted ElAR sets out the Heritage Gain whlch are put forward as proposed mitigation measures for the impact d the removal oft Head, As part of this, it is proposed to extend the permitted greenway (consented 3084/16) further along the northern perimeter of the port estate, and would will assessable "Heritage Zonen,which would incorporate materials from former Breakwater Lighthouse, which was previously demolished, and The Planning Authority recognises that the Dublin modern commercial ships which are typified as large vessels with a deep facilities for mooring, loading, and unloading are required for such for vessels. the updated Dublin Port Masterplan focuses upon the optirnisation of eastwards, as previously proposed and ultimately 29N.PA0007). It is considered that the hiitory of the port of Dublin is that of a infrastructure and the challenge in this instance is to manage change in such the retention of character and special interest. In this case the strategic continue to fuhil its role must be balanced out by both the applimnt and the Council's although is not included within Dublin City It is clear that the pier headwall has significant heritage value as currently proposed, is regrettable. That being said it is clear the existing port is Masterplan focuses upon the optimisation of the the permitted greenway and proposed herltage mitigation and planning gain. Acwrdlngly, on balance ihe proposed acceptable. South Wall, North Bull and Dublin Hahour: Notwithstanding the exclusion of be South Wall fmthe the Planning Authority's Conservation Section have raised wncems about the impacts of increased scouringldredginglwter movements that will arlse from on the South Wall, a Protected Structure and Recorded currently displays serious defects that include cracked stones, large the wall at upper and lower levels, and obvious subsidence and noted that there has been a continued which has not been and concerns are upon the south wall. I The subrniW ElAR was reviewed by Dublin City Couneirs Archaeology Sech. The submitted assessment discusses the potential impact of the proposed development on both terrestrial and marine archaeolagical features and deposits. This document highlights the desk-based assessment, marine geophysbl survey, site lnvestigatlons (borehales), detailed topographical survey. site inspections and undewater inspections undertaken to assess the nature of the archaeological resource within the subject slte. The conclusion is reached that there are no recorded monuments within the subject site and no archaeological material (including shipwrecks) was located as a result of the listed surveyslinvestigations. As such, the suggested archaeological mitigation suggested in the ElAR Is monibring of terrestrial, intertidallforeshore and seabed disturbances associated with the proposed development. This office concurs that an archaeological monitoring brief should be included as a condition with any grant of permission for the proposed development Cha~ter15 - Landsca~e& Visual A Landscape and Wsual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the propused development durlng both the construction and operational stages of the development has been submitted as part of the subject application. It is noted that Ule LVIA also includes a cumulative assessment, which incorporates the development at Berth 49, whiwas consented under PI. Ref. 317W19. The submitted assessment condudes that during the construction stage, due to distance and the broad scale of the landscape within which €he works are located, the impact will be negligible and, therefore, the significance of impacts during the construction stage will be minor. During the operational stage of the subject application, the applicant has stated that the development will be fully read In the context of the existing port-related features at the site and therefore would not negatively impact upon surrounding development. Based upon the submitted the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, the planning authority would concur with the findings of the LWA that the proposed development would have a negligible change In the existing industrial character of the Pot That being said it is noted that concerns have been raised by the Planning Authority's Conservation Section, in regard to proposed Berth 53, whlch would be a part slngle-story1 part -story structure that would be located approx. 6.2 meters above the high watermark. at its highest While it Is considered that the proposed development would result in a noticeable change in the receivhg environment, particularly when viewed from the south wall of Dublin Port, it Is considered that the development would not result in significant negative landscape and visual effeck, either individually or cumulatively. Parks and Landscape Services have also reviewed the LVIA, and found it acceptable, however in terms of mitigation and overall greening of the port it is recommended that a landscapelgreening plan should be prepared for the application site area and this should be conditioned subject to approval d the application. Accordingly, the following condition is recommended; Dernbpment shall nd commence unt# a Landscape Plan prepad bye qualifiedLandscape Architect comprising hrll detafls of the size, species and Cocation of all planting and the teatment of all external ground surfaces buildings, has been submifted to and agreed in wnYing by the Planning Authon'ty and implemented in the fimt planting season fcdlowing completfon of Ihe development or phases of development and any planting which dies or is moved within 3 yeam of planling shall be mplaced in the folIowiig season (The Landscape PIan shall have regard to the Guidelines fbr Open space Development and Taking in Charge, copies of which are awiIable from the Parks and Landscape Services Division). gh The populaton and health chapter of the EIAR assessed the negative health impacts such as disease, accidents, and risk as a result of the proposed development, along with wider health determinants (such as employment, and relating hcome generation) which contribute to good health and wellbeing A baseline assessment was undertaken regarding the exlsting population profile within the wider area. The report concludes that W overall effects on population and health would be positive as the ranging benefiaal changes to sociwconomic factors and their impct on heath and wellbeing outweigh the negligible adverse changes to environmental determinants. Chaoter 17 -Waste The submitted EMassesses the likely significant environmental the waste generation as a result of the proposed development. both In the construction ad Construction: In terms of me overall impact of the construction stage, it has that a ConshcUon and Environmental Management Plan and a ConshcBon and Management Plan would seek to minirnise the waste generation of the Doeration: The EIAR sets out that the development may result in a mindr in waste arisings dw lo anticipated increased usage of the unMed passenger terminal. set out that there will be no discernible effects to waste management once operational and reuse policies, procedures and the implementation of the Waste Management The report concludes that the effects of (he construction and In relation to waste management is deemed as neutral. The contents and within Chapter 17 of the submitted ElAR Is currently under review by of Dublin City Council and will be fomarded to An Bord Pleanala in Chaater 18- Cumulative Effects and Environmental Interactions This details that all environmental topics are interlinked to a degre iintemtationshipsexist It is concluded that the comprehensive assessments undertaken ElAR have revealed that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse effects on Mitigation measures are proposed and outlined wtthin individual ElAR chapten to adverse impacts that may arise as result of the proposed development are Appropriate Assessment This section of the report considers the likely signMcad effects of on European sites with each of the potentlal significant effects assessed in respect of 2000 sites considered to be at risk and the significance of the Screening for Appropriate Assessment and Natura Impact Environmental Consultants and has been Dublin City Councll. European Cornm~$sionguidance Assessment of the proposal should be with reference to ance from the European Commission (EC 201 71, which states that an ecosystem approach overlapping or within Natura 2000. This guidance also states that wlthln Natura 2000 sits: "Navigation channels andlor in an integral part af designated Natura 2000 sites and should be cove ns". Shipping lanes are viewed as habitats interconnected wiUl the Natura nelslshipping lanes from an integral part of habitat type 'estuaries' In all gecg It further states that: 'Maintenance of ports and navigational access shoutd be dea context of integrated management plans for the entire waterway or the affected Natura 2 should be designed as a part of sustainable dredging a Port has prepared a Master Plan for the Port area but this m sites within Dublin Bay and, if disposal at sea is proposed, SAC associated with this and all sites en-route or impacted. The SCI for the Natura 20 wetlands in their own right and the impacts to these must be assessed in te e Independently to be assessed in relatian to water quality: 'Consenration o may or may not rely upon good emlo@calquality of water bodies as defined und dditionat to WFD may be; quiet resting areas for seals or feeding zones on intertidal for Mrds at low lide or even the creation of suitable nesting sites for birdsn. Marine Mammal Management Plen The proposed measures included in Appendlx 19-8 Draft Management Plan are considered to be acceptable. With regard to the reporting OCC, as landowner of North Bull Island and as the local SPA, has access to the data from thls monitoring progmmme (Including not just the annual summary reports. This is to facilitate the revisions of the City Biodiversity Actiml Plan, the City Development Plan, periodic review reporting to UNESCO and to perml future analyses of biodiversity and climate change impacts in Dublin Bay UNESCO Bhphew. Birds and Marine Ecology Management PIan The proposed measures Included in Appendix 19-7 Draft Birds and Marine Ecology Management Plan are cbnsldered b be acceptable. With regard to the retporting procedures proposed, it is essential that OCC has access to the data from this monitoring programme (including the records obtained under ABR), not just the annual summary reports. This is to faciliite the revisions of the City Biodiversity Action Plan, the Clty Development Plan, periodic review reporting to UNESCO and to permit future analyses of biodiversity and climate change impacts in Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere. With regard b the proposal to close the gates at the Greenway during tern feeding periods, this is acceptable to OCC for biodiversity reasons. However, the timing of, and reasons for, the gate dosure need to be clearly comrnuni~~tedto the public by DPC. Public health and safety issues may arise in terms of the location and design of closure points. The NlS condudes that subject to the application of mitigation measures to prevent impacts on designated sites, including best practice construcbion measures, the construction and operation of the subject proposal would not result in any adverse effects on the integrity of the adjoining European Stes, in view of their Conservation Objectives. Having reviewed the Natura Impact Statement. which has been reviewed by Parks and Landscape Sefvices. the Planning Authority concur with the conclusions reached and have no reason to deviate from the results of the assessment. Planning Assessment In general terms, the Planning Authority has assessed the full submission including the drawings, various reports, and impact statements and is generally satisfied and in agreement with their content and conclusions, Therefore, it is not intended as pad of this report to address and reiterate every matter pertaining to the application, The current proposal to inmecapacity at the Port complies with the stated aims of the City Development Plan as well as the zoning objective, as it provides for port-related facilities and activities which are permitted uses. The Planning Authority also recognises that the current proposal whih will faciiitate an increase in the capacity in the port will ultimately enhance the economic life of the city which is a core aim of the City Development Plan. It is furlher noted that the proposed development will minirnise the extent of any physical impacts on the character and amenities of the coastal zonelbay and wlll also allow for greater physical connectivity with the city and the reuse of existing resources. Prindple; As set out above, under the current Dublin City Development Plan (2016-22) the lands that krm part d the development, as well as those adjoining it, are largely zoned 27 Industry and Employment 'lo pmW for €he ptwtecBon and creation of indusMai uses and facilitate oppoifunitfes for ernfloyment crea#ion' with a small area located within the Z9 ArnenityIOpen Space LandslGreen Network tonlng objective which seeks to "preserve, pmvJde and improve mre~tlonalamenity 8nd open space and green neiworks". Portelated industries and facilities are permitted in principle within the 27 land-use xoning objective. Section 14.8.7 of the plan notes that the majority of lands with this zoning are sltuated in Dublin Port, with the primary uses being those which can result in a standard of amenity which would not be acceptable in other areas, and can result In disamenlty which neds to be managed through the planning process to safeguard adjoining residential amenities. The 20 (Arnenity!Open Space knddGreen Network) zoned lands are located along the outer perimeter of the Port, providing a green buffer along the northern and eastern site boundary, The City Development Plan permits Open space uses in principle on 27 lands while Community facilities and CulturaUtecreational buildings and uses are listed as being Open for Consideration. While the part-related development and proposed "Heritage Zone' would be confined to 27 zoned lands, it is noted that the red line boundary includes a portion of 29 zoned land Iccated along the eastern boundary ofthe site, within which development related to pedestrian and cycling greenway is proposed. The proposed development is considered to comply with the of Ule Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022. In relation to cruise ships and cruise tourism, it is noted that in po e to the previous Strategic lnfrasbucture Development Application 29N.PA0034 concerns were aise by Dublin City Council with regards the potential for development to prejudice the future develop en of a cruise terminal building. It is noted that Section 16.21 of !he City Development Plan relatesl make Dublin a 'home port for cruise tourism, with a and wider dflhegion. In this regard, the applicant for cruise ships will be delivered within headjoining Alexandra permitted as part of the Alexandra Basin Redevelopment it has been stated that auiae vessels are Accordingly, it is considered that hecurrent and development of cruise ship tourism and Conservation and Built Industrial Heritaae: As set out in the report above, the current application would of the Pier Head of the formerVictorian Eastern Brealwater, which is not nor is it located within a conservation area. The Ofiicer who has set out that Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record to this element of the proposed development. Section 14.5.1 of the submitted ElAR sets out the Heritage Gain which are put forward as proposed mltlgation measures for the impact of the removal of Pier Head. As part of this, it is proposed to extend the permitked greenway 3084116) further along the northern perimeter of the port estate, and would assessable 'Heritage Zone", which would incorporate materials from former Breakwater Lighthouse, which was previously demolished, The Planning Authority recognises that Dublin Port is required thd modem commercial ships which are typird as large vessels for mooring, loading and unloading are required for updated Dublin Port Masterplan focuses upon the optimfsatlon of existing port expansion eastward which would likely have a detrimental previously proposed and ultimately refused by An It is considered that the infrastmci~reand the challenge in this instanoe the retention of character and special interest. its capacity to continue to fulfil its role out by both the applicant and although is not Included upon Dublin City It is clear that the pier headwall has signincant heritage value as ourrently pmpad is regrettable. That being said it is clear the existing port is and the updated Port Masterplan focuses upon the optirnlsation of the existing that the extension to the permitted greenway and proposed hefitage zone is mitigation and planning gain, Accordingly, on balance, the proposed acceptable and worthy of support. It should be noted however that the proposed plans of a gate along the route which would limit access to the western portion of zone. It has been recommended as part of the mitigation wlhin gate be used to control acoess during periods of low spring Tolka Estuary. It is requested that the management of this area and when Parks and Landscape Sewices has wemmed the pmposed installation, the 'Market, to Incorporate features which will inform visitors of the pots industrial, marWme and acologid heritage and it has been recommended hat DPC engage with the UNESCO Bkspheres Consewation and Research Group with regard to the ecological conlent of this important installation as a means to gain expdse and input ham the wider community of mvimnmental organisations of Dublin Bay's natural heritage. Oeten'oratbn dthe South Wall of Dublin Hamur: The Planning Authority's Conservation Sedlon have ralwd concerns about the conUnued and likely impacts of increased scouringldredgingplvaht movemenk that will arise horn the prop& development on the South Wall, a Protected Structure and Recorded Monumentwithin a Conservation Area, which currently displays serious defects. It has been noted that there has been a contlnued deterioration in the wndibion of the South Wall In reoent times. It is therefare recommended that the applicant be requested to address the concerns of Dublin CiiCouncils Conservation Section In relation b the negative impact upon the south wall of the port Impact on amenity The proposed new elements to be constructed on lands within the Dublin Port. The proposed infrastructure-related development would be carried out upon 27 zoned lands, the City Development Plan 2022 reobonises that the primary uses in 27 lands are those that can result in a standard of amenity that would not be amptable Land-use Zonings in other areas. While subject application would essentially result In an intensification of existing port operations some of the proposed elements, in particular, the proposed Berth 53 would be substantial and visible from outside the port. parti~ularlyfrom the South Wall of the poh It is acknowtedged however that the development has been designed specifically to muet tho requirements of the port and would be located on the estabtished port lands. The planning authority would concur with the findings of the LVlA that the development would have a negligible impact on the existing industrial character of the port lands. Accordingty, no objection is raidto this element of the proposed development. Roads and Traffic The Roads and Traffic Planning Division has assessed the proposal and while supportwe of the proposed development there are aspects of the proposal that require further agreement with Roads and Traffic Department, specifically the timing of the closures of the accesses and traffic management measures from East Wall Road. Accordingly, it b recommended that a mnditlon Be attached, should permfssion be granted, requiring the timing of road closures to be agreed with Dublin City Council. Community Galn Section 37 G (7) of the Planning and Development (Strategk Infrastructure) Act 2008 stipulates in the event that planning permission is granted for strategic infrastructure development, the hardcan make provision for a community gain arising out of the development. In this regard, Dublin Port Company is proposing the following community gain: a) Dublin Port Company propose to allocate a sum of 50% of the site value of the Polefield (or sales price achieved) at the date of the grant of permission to a maximum contribution of Elm towatds the provblon and operation of a City Farm on lands owned by Dublin City Council adjacent to the Pm-either in FaiFview Park or on Alfie Byme Road. These lands wifl be of sufficient scale to support a viable City Farm Project. b Secondly, Dublh Pwt Company propose to allocate a sum of E1,000,000 to be Invested for the enhancement and support of education provision for St Josephs %Ed Primary School G) All of these sums will be in addition to the current community-based initiatives and special projects that DPC is undertaking. The proposai for Community Gain (Appendix C) is acceptable in principle to DCC Parks and Landscape Senriees. East Wall is an area of the City where there are deficits of public green space and it is a policy of the Clty Development Plan and also the DCC Parks Strategy to address thls through provision of new, accessible public parks and open spaces. It is our understanding that the site proposed for the City Farm is to be situated on the Alfie Byrne Road adjacent to the existing substation and Irish Rail mainline service, not at Fairview Park, Fainriew Park is a sub-site of the North Bull Island SPA It b has been requested that the applicant provides a site location map of the prowsite(s) for the Community Gain proposals. Conclusion It is the opinion of the City Coumil that the proposed capacity at the Port by increasing the depth and multi-purpose berths is In accordance with the Plan 2016-2022 and other relevant plans. redeveloping existing infrastructure and and without any major reclamation works (in contrast It is acknowledged that the proposed development Port, and would enable the port to keep pace with developments ships are becoming the industry norm. According1 in accordance with the principles of the relevant number of issues Mich the Planning Authority being granted would request to be conditione pment is carried out in accordance with the proper planning and sustain , These issues have been highlighted in the main body of the report and a appendices. In particular it is noted that concenrs have b Conservaation Section in relation to the potential impacts upon of the d the port. The Planning Authorily would also request that the recommends ra Impact Assessment would be carried thmugh in any grant of permission in order to e character and amenities of the River Channel, Dublin Bay and reduce any potential imp te of the development and adjoining lands. Appendix P Reporb A. Roads and Traffic Planning 6. Conservation C. Air Quality Monitoring & Wdse Control D. Parks and Landscapes Sewices Division E, Drainage Division Roads and Traffic Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Repart I I An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) is with the application. Section 13 of the ElAR relates to the traffic impact of the proposed 3 of the EIAR also relates to the Construction of the proposed development. , Access 10 the proposed development will be along the existing la n twork in the Port Proposed amendments to the internal road network to accommodate the ne de arture areas for HGVs and passengers will be located at the end of Promenade Road wh6~egr ,gation of trafsc into several lanes will owr. The proposed amendments to the departures ald rdv Is check ins will occur at the end of the Promenade Road Extension where the seven departur~la es ill be separated into different lane designations. In order to faciIitate infrastructure for departures a d p blic access to Terminal 1 the full width available in this area Amthe edge of he Stale Services yard to the west lo the b e of hegreenway to the east, is required. This will prevent installation of the four northbound ahiv I la es as wnsented under the Internal Roads Project with baRc diverted through the State Sewices Ya I. HGV check In will be facilitated at the proposed six lane HGV ch ,ck n fa 'lity at Alexandra Road and the proposed dual urn elght lane check in facility towards the North istl rner of the slte. The queue lengths have been estimated based on target check in times to e 'sue equate space is available h advance of the check* booths to prevent pnr-check in HGV qleu s f m impacting on Me public access to the Terminal building or light vehicle access to the dual u ch ck in booths. The proposed chech-in areas include new doubbsided check-in booths with a can y p , vided above for cover. It is proposed to provide three new booths to senrice the six dedicated HG ch ck in lanes and an additional four booths to sewice the eight dual use lanes. A number of pedestrian walkways and an underpass are proposedii ring passengers to Berth 51 and 52 and to the existing Terminal building. Construction Com~ounds I I To facilitate construction works, 5 no. temporary construction been indicated to be provided over the various phases of development. Separate be used for different phases of the works. The compounds have been shed to facilities, site offices and parking, construction plant storage, and materials is located in or immediately adjacent to the relevant works phase. Phase Li - Nodhem Access Road This phase will take approximately 6 months to These works include the installation of underground services and drawings access routes to the north side of the site to tie in wih the internal mad this construction phase will be hated on the north-eastern end of the the Alexandra Road Extension. This area is currently being used to Phase L2 - Eastem A~SSRoad This phase of development will take approximately 6 months to commencing in Q1 2027. These works will take place after the filling of the basin occurs under 29N.PA0034). The underpass will also on the outer most used to store shipping mntalners for Seatruck Ferries. Phase L3 - Unmd Feny remind Yard This phase of development will take approximately 12 months to complete, commencing in 43of 2027. Works to be carried out in this phase include the installation of footpaths in areas whew bulldlngs have been demolished, installation of road markings, connection b the internal road networks as well as upgrade works to the existing Terminal 1 building. The site ompound for this phase of development will be where the compound for Phase L1 is located. Phase L4 - Herifag~installation The site compound for Phase L4 will ba located in the south-eastern corner of the site, at the end af the Alexandra Road extension. These works, which will take approximately 9 months to complete, will wmmence in Q3 2031 and will comprise of the construction of the heritage zone Incorporating the masonry blocks recovered during earlier construction phases in the Port and the installation of the heritage structures. In tandem with the works to iand as detailed above (Phases L1-L4), a number of subsequent works (Phases M1-Me) will occur. Phase Mi (Berth 52) will see works commence at the same time as Phase L1 in Ql 2022 and will compromise of works in and out of the water such as eonstrudon of steel pib aambi- walls and cellular sheet pile walls. These works will take approximately 33 months lo complete. The dte compound for this phase will be shared with that detailed far Phase L2. Phase M2 (Berth 53) will commenw in Qi 2025 after Phase MI Is completed. The development constructed under Phase MI will facilitate conshetian access to Berth 53. The site compound for his phase of development will also be as detailed for phase L2 as all the works are located In the same area of the port. Works in this phase, which wlll take approximately 24 months to complete, will take place in and out of the water and include works such as Installation of linkspan structure, dredging of the berth po&et and installation to access structure to the upper tier linkspan. + Phase Md(Channel Widening Works) will commenced in Q1 2027 and will take place after Phase L1 is complete. As these works are taking place in the water, a separate site compound has not been identified. Phase M4 (Jetty Road) wlll commence in Q1 2027 when the channel widening works in Phase M3 are completed* This phase will take approximately 12 months to complete, bammencing in Ql2029 and utiliing a site compound to the south of Tolka Quay Road In an area used by Dublin Ferryport Terminals. Phase M5 (Oil Berth 3) will commenced in Q1 2030 and last approximately 12 months. This phase includes works in and out of water and will share the site campound designated for Phase M4, Phase M6 (Berth 50A) will commence after Phase M5 is completed and will last approximately 15 months, commencing in Q1 201 31. Works will occur in and out of the water during the phase and the site compound wlll be located to the south of the Phase M4 and M5 site compound in the DFT terminal area. A draft Construction Traffic Construction Management Plan has been submitted in Appendix 19-1 of the ElAR (Part 3). It is stated that a Traffic Management Coordinator will oversee and maintain all traff~ management on the site. Construction traplic will arrive and depart the port via the natibnal mad network. Wdhin the Dublin Port Estate, traffic will be muted through the existing road n~tworkto reach the proposed MP2 Project site boundary. Traffic within the proposed site will be diverted in a phased manner b ensure the existing facilities at Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 remain operational with rninirnal impact It is noted that the peak HGV tram volume will occur 43 2030. There will be an average daily traffic over this period of 57 HGV movements per day, based on a 5-day working week. The peak week within the proposed consbwctlon stage will be Q4 2030 where on average there will be 81 HGV movements per day. This would incorpamte a peak of 17 HGV movements (in and out) per hour between 7am and 8 am. An outline MMP has been included in Appendlx MMP has been prepared to rot out the type of measures which could the operators within the MP2 Project, to ensure are available to staff and visitors of the Me2 Project. In the will lialse WYh the ether operators en the site operational. The TlA included within Chapter 13 d the EIAR looked at 2026,2033 as the key assessment years; 2026 reflects about two thirds of the construction works for t 2031 reflects the substantial completion of the MP2 Project Dublin Port Masterplan 2040 and permitted commerciaYresidentiaI infrasbcture already been incorporated into the applied to the non-Port traffic flows. I I Detailed traffic modelling has been carried out on on the internal and external road networks. The modelling results demonstrate permitted internal road network within Dublin Port has sufficient traffic flows even at the end of the Masterplan in 2040. This Estate traffic from 2.5% per annlrrn to 3.3% per also notes that the proposed development will not currently included In NTAs Transport Strategy for Overall, the TlA condudes that existing, pernilled and and transportation measures will accommodate the trips generated by the increased road capacity will be provided on the external road accesses along East Wall Rod, and the delivery of the Southern Port further capacity benefits along East Wall Road. It also notes that sufficient capacity at 2040 when lhe WIP2 Project is The Transportation Planning Division is satisfied with the bm tted as part of the ElAR and with the principle of the proposed development overall. Recommendation: I In the event of a grant of permission, it is recommended that the foi I o+ng hndilions shall apply: 1. Prior to occupation of the proposed shall submit a Mobility Management Plan for measures aimed at encouraging sustainable Dublin Port. 2. Prior to commencement of development and on appointmen of a contractor, a Ccnstructlon Management Plan shall be submitted to the planning authority for ritten agreement, This plan shall provide details of intended construction practice for UI d elopment, including traffic managementwhours of working, noise management rhea un and off-rite disposal of I mnstructiorrrdernolition waste. ti 3. The developer shall be obliged to comply with the requiremLnl but in heCode of Practice. I 4. All costs incurred by Dublin City Council, including any public road and services necessary as a result of development, shall be at the developer. Work in the public road may only be carried out by Dublin City Conservation Comments Introductio~ We have reviewed the proposed works described in the documentation submitted in relation to €he impacts on Architectural Heritage within the port belf and the wlder city context. We have reviewed in particular the impacts ofthe proposed works on the remains of the historie Alexandra Basln, the remains of the Bindon Blood Stoney 2Pcentury stone pierlbreakwater (referred to as the Eastern Breakwater Pier Head adjacent to existing berth 50A). We have also considered the likely impacts on the 18*119m century South Wall and North Bull, notwithstanding they are located outside the subject slte. Paraic Fallon, Mary McDonald and Niarnh Kieman attended a consultation meeting with the applicants on the 291" March 2018 where the proposed works were described in outline. Pollcv Context The lands wtthln Dublin Port in the subject site are within Zone 27 To pmvbe for the pmtechn and creation of industria/ uses and facilitate a4Ppwfunilbsfor employment math', 04 The Eastern Breakwater Pier Head, constructed 1858 - 1884 as part of Bindon Blood Stoney's Alexandra Deep Water Basin, is not a Protected Structure. However, it is recognised as one of the most important and innovative sunriving remnants of the hlstoric port, and Is Included in the Dublin City Industrial Heritage Record (DCI HR No. 1940402). The original lighthouse constructed c. 1884 that was once located on the Pier Head is also included on the DCIHR No. 1969-003. This Lighthouse was replaced c.1907, and demolished in the early 2000s - its lantern and bell were salvaged by Dublin Port. South Walt and North Wall The South Wall and Bull Wall are both outside the subject site but are likely to be im~actedbv the proposed works such as scouringldredging and intensification of water move&ents from' large veisels and thus are referred to in our assessmmt. These sea walls form an intrinsic part as the visible bundary of the historic Dublin Harbour and were constructed in 1715-1795 and 1819 - 1824 respectively. The South Wall is within a Consenration Area, and is a Protected Structure RPS Ref. No. 6798 'Gmat Swfh Wail (to lighthouse), m8on House Road/Soufh Poct, Dublin Bay, Dubtin 4'. 1he lighthouse at the east end of the South Wall is a Protected Structure RPS Ref. No. 7553 'Poolbeg Lighthouse, Gmat South Wail, Hngsend, Dublin 4'. The South Wall is also identified as being within Site of Archaeological Interest and is induded in the RMP Ref. No. DU019-028 (Battery c.1793) and is included in the DClHR Ref. NO. 19-09416. The Bull Wall and Bull Bridge are within Zone 29 'to pmseme, pmvMe end impve matbna!emenily and apen space andgreen networks', fhe timber Bull Bridge and a number of reinforcd concrete picnic and bathing shelters along the wall are included in the Record of Protected Structures RPS Ref. Nos. 101 2 Rmber Bridge - Bull Island, Dublin 3 and I013 B8thing shelters and pbnic shdtem - Bull WalVBu!I !s/anU. Dubfin 3'. The Bull Wall, also referred to as The Great North Wall is included in the OCIHR, Ref. No. 1945Q01. The ElAR Chapter 14 14.3.1 provides an historlc account about the development of Dublin Bay* Bindon Blood Stonev Eastern Pier Head As noted by MOM, The Pier Head was the extreme Eastern point ofthe (NotfA) Port lands, prior to the systemtic twclamatian which occurred to create the Purl as we know it today. Its ground plane character was defined by an angled mundei fcwmed in granite, The rwnde/ (Fig.31, also housed a LighWuse, variously referred to as the Breakwater lie. the Aiexandm) fighthouse dating from f9W.It replaced an eatibr Lighthouse (Fig.5), pmsumed io date fmm the perlod of the conshehn of the Bmekwater- The Breakweter Ughthouse was demotished In 2002. The engjneeiing of me Breakwater is a fhibuted to Port Engineer Bind 3n I ad Stoney, the Innovative designer ofthe Alexandra Basin. Most of the historic remnants of pe Pie fwd am sfj/t substanfial!y intact, albeit fha t reclamathn has buried the full return of the terminus. ... ' Whilst 4.1.2 of the Planning Report notes that there are bo featurns of built heritag~ designated within the devdopment area. However, the Eastern described and indicated in Figwe 14-9 of Chspter 14, Volume 2 of the NAR is of IndusttiaI tresi, Dublin City Industdal Heritage Record (DCIHR) 19-09-002: Southgate and aised The Terminus (Pler Head) of the Eastern Breakwater as being le Lighthouse Lantern as 'Regionally Significant*. Sir John Purser Griffith in his publication 'The Port of Dublin - ical Sketch' (1915) listed Alexandra Basin extension and reclaimed lands north of it, and the :er Jetty (Alexandra Wharf) north side of Alexandra Basin among some of the most wried out between 1898- 1914, under the powers of the Act of 1902 when nted and finding raised for improvement of the port. Bindon Blood Sbney's North Quay, Eastern Breakwater and ep Water Basin displayed innovative new unsVuction techniques and execution using :hemid-eighteenth-century the vast majority of the quaysides in Ireland's ports were lded rubble masonry faced with large cut facing stones. These walls were capped copings and secured with iron keys. This method was employed for the quays iih were built in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, the costs of preparing quay walls below water could be proh bitir , and as early as 1863, the engineer of Dublin Port, Bindon Blood Stoney, had begun to evaluate e rr ~tivecosts of bthmasonry and concrete for this purpose. Stoney had been hired by the Dublin alla Board as an Assistant for its Engineer and Inspector of Works, George Halpin, in January 1856, His first task was as Resident Engineer for the completion of the new g vi I dock, and in 1859 he was promoted to Executive Engineer and given the authority to sign aqu ts. alpin seems to have found it difficult to delegate all responsibility for the port to Stoney, and in 86 62 a difference of opinion arose between the two men over Sbney's proposals for the future d ell ment of the docks and his proposed new methcd of mnstructing deep-water quays. Halpin reti in 882, and Stoney was then appointed as the Board's chief engineer. Stoney remained in the post of 1 lief Engineer to the Ballast Board (reconstituted in 1869 as the Dublin Port and Docks Board) far ust rer thirty-six years. Stoney undertook a series of tests which actually same 50 percent cheaper than stone, and he proposed to ;oncrete, up to 350 tons in i Is. These were made on a gnsd floating shears. They were lowered into position on he telled by workmen using a special diving bell which Stoney as lowered into position in 1871.100-ton concrete bbcks >wer section of a quay wall at Greenore; however I method proved to t>e both Hith a depth of 22fl(6.70m] ley simul~ansouslycreated t method was used for the d for the foundations of the and deeper than any other Stoney described his method in a paper, 'On the consttucfionof ' marine works with adificial blocks of large size', delivered to the Institution of Civil in 1874, which gained him the Institution's Telford Medal and Premium for considerable international interest when the British Association for the YS) met in Dublin in 1878, and an expedition visited the docks to I an enduring monument to Bindon Blood Stoney who won At the same time as the graving dwk was being bullt, a was constructed running eastwards across the estuary of the Tolka. Now superseded reclaimed land to its north, its line is that followed by Tolka Quay Road, The original timber jetties at the Alexandra Wharf deteriorated over the years and in 1921, the Ports Engineer-in-Chlef Joseph Mallagh submitted proposals for thelr replacement by a masonry quay wall built to a system of his own design. It was a major innovation in harbour engineering and involved the canstructjon of cassions of reinfo& concrete, measuring 50ft long by 3Mtwide and 42ft high, they were built on a slipway and then launched and floated into pasition, Once in place the cassion was filled with sand supplied by a concrete slab and the new quayslde completed. Begun in 1922, the work was finished by 1931. The Great South Wall and Poolbea Liahthouse As noted in the DCIHR, the South Bull Wall was wnstructed as part of a series of measures to improve the shipping channel into Dublin Port, and replaced an earlier series of timkr piles, which had failed to fulfil the same purpose. The wall was constructed in two sections: the first (1748-1755) ran from Ringsend eastwards to a point known as the Green Patch near Pigeon House Harbour, while the second (1761-1795) began at the site of the Poolbeg Lighthouse and continued westwards towards the shore to meet up with the earlier section. In all it measured same 3.5 miles in length and was one of the longest sea walls ever constructed. The construction methods consisted of two parallel granite walls, filled with rubble and paved over with granite 'bgstones. Granite blacks were transported across the bay from quarries at Dalkey and Dun Laoghalw and were originally skilfully intertacked without the need for mortar, The meandering form of the wall is a result of its following the natural sand bank and it Includes a number of related structures, such as the slipway to its northwest flank and the Poolbeg Llghthouse at its easternmost tlp (built in the 1760s to replace an earlier lightship on the site. and reputedly the first in the world to be entirely candte-powered). Although it proved unsuccessful in improving shipping access to Dublin Port until the completion of the accompanying North Wall in 9824, the Great South Wall remains one of the maJor engineering and construction achievements of the eighteenth century. With the Paolbeg Lighthouse at its tip, it is one of the landmark features of Dublin as a city and me great technical skiH involved in its construction is evident In the fine stonework still visible Way. The Paolbeg Llghthouse, Protected Structure RPS Ref. No. 7553, was designed by John Smyth and commenced in 1762 and compl@tedIn 1763, and was redesigned and rebuilt in 1820. The wall, as a promenade and including the famous half- moon swimming club, is now a major socia[ amenity. The North WalYBull Wall As noted in the DCIHR, the Great North WalUBull Wall represents the final element of one of the major engineering and construction achievements of the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-centuries in undertaking to improve the shipping channel into Dublin Port which began with the construction of the Great South Wall. Constructed between 1819 and 1824, the Bull Wall measures 2.7km in length and comprises a central section of ashlar granite wall wlth an opening bebeen Bull Island and the shore spanned by a wooden bridge (built 1906, replacing an earlier bridge dating to 1819) while the eastern end, whkh is of granite rubble, is covered at high-water. The water drops below this section midway through the ebb tide so that for the latter half of each outgoing tide the water Is fordbetween the two lighthouses (North Wail & Poolbeg) at the entrance to the port Tidal scour as a result of the construction of the two walls, saw the force of the water cut a channel across the bar over time, deepening the previous depth of 0 feet to 16 feet at law water, The sand dislodged from the bar and was carried further out into the bay where it picked up by cumnts which then deposited it on the North Bull bank formlng Bull Island. The purpose of the half tlde wall and the Bull bridge is to act as safety valves to prevent darnage to the wall from the pressure of full tide. The North Bull Lighthouse at the tip of the 8ull Island was erected in 1880. Reinforced concrete picnic and bathing shelters have been constructed along the length of the middle section of the wall with a statue called Our Lady, Star of the Sea (Walt na Mara) erected in 1972 just before the half-tide wall. tn addition to the engineering and technical significance of the wall, it is now a Ualamenity for the Iml area, further ernphasised by the provision of the mncrete bathing and picnic shelters. The wall is a landmark stnrcture within Dublin Bay not least due to the impact its construction had on the formation of Bull Island. Historial significance is attributable due to its association with George Halpin, engineer for the port of Dublin and Francis Giles, who cotlaborated to prepare the scheme. The construction of the North Bull Wall followed on from the Wall and together they represented a remarkable piece of harbour engineering water in the previously treacherous Dublin Bay to be increased with the Bull Relevant Planning History An overview of the development of Dublin Port eastwards along th4 Ri er L Ffey is clearly demonstrated by cartographic records dating from Bernard de Gomme's Map of q67 tot e present day. Dublin Port has been the subject of a large number of recent alterations as noted i th list of planning applications provided in the planning application form within the Planning Particu ars. These ate reflective of the constant pressures to respond to the changing requirements of a bus po . Description of the works i i In summary, the proposed works wmprise alterations and extensions to e isting 20thcentury berthing arrangements including a prominent extension (Berth 53), the credo of new 'Heritage Zone' at the east end of the port and the demolition of the Eastern Breakwater Pie He d (the remainder of Bindon Stoney Blood's 19* century breakwater to the deepwater Alexandra asi ) described in the Planning Report 5.1 as 'tengthening of an existing river berth {%A) 10 proyide the Container Freight terminal with additional capacdy to ha#& larger container ships, These s w 4 include the infilling of the basin east of the now virtually mdundanl Oil Berth 4 on the EasterT 0 Je '. Berth 53 - new In new tocation - will accommodate vesse Berth 52 - new location - will accommodate vessels of 240 ii Berth 49 - same location, amendments -will accommodate Berth 50A - demolition of Blood Stoney pierlbreakwater - Breakwater Pier Head - to accommudate multi-purpose pr Vessel Berth Eastern Oil Jew Channel Widening; dredging works to the south of the exi Poolbeg Oil Jetty to a standard depth of 1O.Om CD to fadlitat vessels from Berths 49,52 and 53 Unified Ferry Terminal Heritage Zone -at the eastern boundary and junction with Ancillary Works Assessment and conclusion The praposed development and expansion of the port to viability and the new cycleway and public amenity at its east end are supported the remaining historic fabric within the port Is not damaged or comprwnised by AS previously noted, whilst 4.12 of (he Planning Report notes 'no affihifectuusl feaW of built heritage designated within the development area. Breakweter described and indicated in Figure f 4-9 of Chapter f4, Volume 2 of City industrial Heritage Record (PCIHR) 19-00-002: Tenninus (Pier Head) of the Eastern Breakwater as Lantern as 'Regionally Significant'. We are of the opinion that although the Eastern Breakwater luded in the Record of the Protected Struchrres, this structure is in our opinion of Archite aeological, Technical and Social Interest as defined as Categories of Special lnte 2000 Planning Act The proposed deconstruction, removal and relocation of the his Bindon Stoney Blood Pier end wlthin a new 'evocation of the roundel.. .that l/!ustraies th Pier Head In the in the 'Heritage Zone' Is not supported by the Conservation S not amrd with best conservation practie and conservation principles, nor the in relation to Industrial Heritage and would result in the loss of one of the last survivi res of maritime interest within the port area. We refer to the following Dublin Principles, adopted by ICOMOS in Paris in 201 1, which are cited in the documentation submitted: Principle 2 - Protect Protection measures should apply to buildings and their wntents since completeness or functional integrity is espedally imporlant to the significance of industrial heritage structures and sites. Their heritage value may be greatly jeopardized or reduced 1machinery or other significant mponents are mmwed, w if subsidiary elements which form part of a whds site are destroyed. Principle 3 - Conserve Dismantling and relocating are only acceptable in extraordinary cases when the destruction of the site is required by objedively proved overwhelming economic or social needs. The adoptlon of the Dublin Principles by ICOMOS General Assembly in Paris in December 201 1 was a major step In the recognition of the significanm of industrial heritage, and the need for its mnsewation, protection and enhancement. The following Is a synopsis of what constitutes 'industrial heritage' as detailed In the Dublin Principtes: 'lnduslry, dong with implying msnufactuti'ng, includes transport, exbadion, public utiJities and teiewmmunlcations. lndusMal hen'tage ocmnats of a broad range of physicel nmains and objects indudhg landsmpes, sites, strwctUms, machinery and documents whhh pmvide of Lhese various types of industry. It indudes both mated%/assets and intangjble elements such 8s technical know/edge, work management, and social and culhml legacy. Thus the study and appclalion of industtial heritage can appeal lo a people from many differentbackgmunds Including, but not limited to, amhaeaJagists, engineers, gedgraphers, hish'ans, atchiteeis, smidlogfsts and those employed in induw. We refer also to the following consenratlon principles In particular as set out within the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelhes 2011 which are contravened by the proposed works: Protecting the Special Interest Promoting Minimal Intervention Ensuring Reverslbllity of Alterations Avoiding Incremental Damage Discouraging the use of Architectural Salvage from Other Buildings Whilst it is acknowledged that the ongoing development and alteration within a commercial port is inevibbte, our concerns relate to the continued incremental losses where the special category of interest and special significance is adversely impacted by such development. Fig. 4 in MOLA's Industrial Heritage and Compensation Planning and Design Report clearly demonstrates in one location at the Eastern Pier Head the extant buildingslfeatures in the 1980s including the 1907 Lighthouse and lantern, the Dublin Port Radio Station Building, mast and large iron structure In the foreground, all of which were replaced by the new Port Operations Building erected c. 2002-5. The proposed removal and refmatian of the 19th century Pier End has not been sufficiently justified in the documentation provided by the applicant. We consider that the separation of the Pier Head from the last visible remains of the historic breakwater (possibly buried) and its 'evocation' at the east end af the proposed new 'Heritage Zone' with the former lighthouse lantern within the new 'Marker' feature offers little mitigation for its dismantling, removal and reloeation. The existing stone step adjoining the Pier End are not referred to in the proposed works. The MOLA report notes that the base of the 'Marker' will echo the actual plan of the Pier Head Lighthouse, but does not indicate which one (that constructed in 1907 or the earlier lighthouse). MOLA's Industrial Heritage Impacts and Compensation Planning and Design Report notes that 'Chapter 14 of the EIAR ....further recornmends that a complete 30 record of the #xisung stwctures and associated features must be acquimd b amhambgicai standards, ensuring metrically accurate plan elevation and section drawing infomaSEon will be acquim. It also notes that the demolition of the Pier Head mqulred a commiimant to salvage and store the measuring elemenls fw heritage gain pmj8ctsS It further noted that the demolition pmsswould aiYord an opportunity to record and recover exemplars of Binden Blo& Stoney's work and to understand mom fully the wnst1~1cCionprocess developed to create he Deepwater Basin. ... ' The EIAR also notes in 14.6 that 'he hahaterMay lies under the actice mad surface that is &&water Road which leads fmm Tdka Quay Road south to the quayside at the Pod OpemtionNTS 8udding: These remains should be respected in any works arising, and a methodology should be provided for the dernolitlon and removal of the Operations Pbr End to avoid any damage to the historic fabrlc. The legacy of 8indon Blood Stoney would be better served by Pier Head in its existing location in brms of protecting the architectural heritage. It is the Pier Head which once marked the outer extremity dthe Port, would in the at the centre of the extended ?oh The proposal to mark of the new 'Heritage Zone' would continue a logical reconsiders the proposed removal d the Pier current location and an alternative design is vessels. S Notwithstanding the exclusion of the the continued and likely impacts of the proposed development on the South Wall, Monument within a Conservation Area, which currently wntinuous gaps along the edges of dipping on the northern side. in particular I I There has been a continued deterioration in the ccnditian of the ~4~1thWa h recent times, which has not been rajfied by the filling of evewidening joints with material \ha has in turn augmented stresses presented as cracking within the historic stone slabs on the surface o the wall. We are of the opinion that any further signitkant works that would intensify the amount of dr ing scouringlwater movements arising from increased trafffc volumes will continue to have a significa t e ect on the historic fabric of the South Wall. t il ElAR Chapter 14 Table 14-1 states that there will IE no impacts from Project on the Sea wall .Great South Wall to Poolbeg Lighthouse. This is reiterated in 14.4.4 1.9. This has not been adequately demonstrated. In resped of the unprotected, albeit architeoturillly signficant ~inddn Blood East Pier, we refer to DCC Development Plan 2016 0 2022 Objective to the city's industn'al hedtage and Dublin City lndusfrial Hetifag8 record (DCIHR)in the Area Plans and the assessment d planning appkations ., ,. .' and 14 'To Principles flCONOS,20I j) as guiding principles to asskt in tho appreciation of industrlaI hefitage as pad of the heritage In respect to the Sauth and North Walls (Protected special internst of pr0t8Cted stnrctures is pmfected 4 We are of the opinion that the proposed new stepped feature a Marker will be huge!y dependent on the quality of the materiats used, particularly the formation of this new public place. Unfortunately in our opinion, based on the images lndusfrial Heritage Impacts and Compensation Planning and Design Report, the ?e -tied concrete Berth 53 obstructs the views of the bay looking south. Air Quality Monitoring & Noise Control Noise Control and Air Qualitv Control - Derndition and Construction Phase The mitigation measures containd in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report written by RPS must be implemented in full. The measures outllned In the Alr Quality Monitoring and Noise Control Unit's Good Pdce Guide for Construction and Demolition must be implemented in full. The risk category Is high risk for thls purpose. The site and building works requiwd to implement the development shall only be carried out between the hours of: Monday to Friday - 07.00 a.m. - 6.00 p.m. Saturday 08.00 am. - 2.00p.m. Sundays and Bank Holidays - No activity on site Deviation from these times will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where prior approval has been received from Dublin City Council. Such approval may ta given subject to conditions pertaining to the particular circumstances being set by Dublin City Council. An air quallty monitoring network to monitor air pollution during the oonstructlon and operational phases must be proposed and approved by Dublin City Council. The proposal must have regard to the provisions of The Air Quality Standards Regulations 201 1 (S.I. 180 of 201 1). Parks and Landscapes Services Division Dublin Pott MP2 ndeveloprnenb Response from Dublin city Parks and Landscape Sowkes The Parks and Landscape Services Division has reviewed the ~labnig R pol( and associated repods for the MP2 Project and submits the following observations and rn me 'dations on behalf of Dublin City Council to An Bord Pleanala: Consultation with Parks and Biodiversity t t Consultation with Parks and Landscape Services on matters flora, fauna and landscape impacts has been brief. A 2018, which was attended by Maryann matters raised over a discussion of approximately one page nos). Consultation also took place with Leslie gain proposals. However, there have been no and little opportunity for us to discuss the data capacity to review the application by Parks which were reviewed are noted below. be interpreted as agreement with their contents or conclusions. , Project Ratlonak Dublin City Council's (OCC) Parks and Landscape Services has that the Project Rationale will involve an overall eonsolidation and intensifidon of ?heexisting extent of the Dublin Port lands. This is in line with the and objectives. This Rationate is preferable to previous strategies for the reclamation, and the associated impacts this would present to the through this development to increase green should be demonstrated in accordance with Development Plan. The proposed intensification of development, particularly the for extension and widening of the channel, have potential to cause a vari rough disturbance of protected species and emissions to the receiving env e timeframe of the proposed development of nine years means that these i and that phasing and timing of proposed works and mitigation measu set out and adhered to. Monitoring must be timely to ensure that any delete itigation are rapidly identified and addressed. Post-wnstruction monitoring according to the requirements of several protecled species that impacted or potentially impacted, Furthermore, while cumulative impacts have the submission, additionat plans or projects may arise over such a lengthy period a be accounted for in terms of the proposed Environmental Management Plan. European Commission guldance Assessment of the proposal should be with reference to the from the European Commission (EC 2011), which states that an ecosystem to ports that are overlapping or within Malura 2000. This guidance also management quiet resting areas far seals or feeding zones on intertidal habitats for otter or for bids at low tide or even the creation of suitable nesting sites for birdsn. Blodlvomity, Flora and Fauna 7.25,l Flora and Habitats Whlle the EIAR (7.2.3.1, page 7-23) states that there were no significant impacts in relation to flora across habitats, the MP2 Project site includes habits of local importance for wildlife, particularly pollinators, which wlll be lost permanently by the proposed development. Conditions recommended to ABP: DCC requests that a) sibs be identifd for post-constructlon restoration of native flora and b) the establishment of new planting areas be included by the Landscape Architect to provide for local pollinators. To protect local biodiversity and to meet objectives of the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan (2015- 2020) and the City Biodiversity Action Plan (2016-2020). Terrestrial Mammals While otter is not found in the terrestrial component of the MP2 project, otter - including juveniles - have been reported in several repeated SUTV8yS by DCC and others on the River Tolka throughout Dublin City Council administrative area and up into Fingal County Council. Thls includes otters seen by ESB staff at the section of the Tolka next to Faiwiew Park at AIfie Byme Road. Therefore, measures abng the coastal edge of the proposed Greenway near the Tolka Estuary may wuld be Included for 0th.Otter also use the Grand Canal Dock, and spraintswre identified there by the NPWS ranger for south Dublin. Conditions recommended to ABP: DCC requests that the Landscape Plan for the Greenway include specific measures for otter. Reason: To ensure campliance with the EU Habitats Directive under Wick 10. AtIantlc salmon The EIAR states that the River Llffey Is constantly failing b meet its wnservation limits for Atlantic salmon (page 7-3!3, IBEl429fElAR). ADD TEXT Salmon smolt migration takes place in March to May. The applicant proposes cessation of piling from March until May (detailed on page 35,1BE1429/EIAR and page 234 in the NlS) to mitigate disturbance to the migration of salmon srnolts. However, the period of dredging activity is stated as being carried out during the wlnter months, between October and March to mitigate any impacts on nesting terns and on salmonid migration (NIS, pages 218 & 234). This is contradictory. No piling or dredging during the month of March should be permitted. Reason: lo ensure compliance under the EU Habitats Directive with regard to salmon smolts. Harbour Porpoke Current marine mammal mitigation for the proposed development (EIAR 7.4.6.1 page and NIS. 5.7.2, page 274-2751 states that visual scanning for marine mammals (including Harbour Porpoises) will only be effective (1) during daylight hours and (2) in good visibility extending 1km or more beyond the limits of the assigned Monitored Zone, while (3) sea conditions for effective visual monitoring by MMOs are WMO Sea State 4 (m8eaubrt Force 4 conditions) or less. Furthermore, NPWS guidelines (NPWS 2014) state thatdetection improves considerably be& WMO Sea S€ak3 beaufo fort Force 3 conditions) and Irish Whale and Dolphin Group preferred protocols for surveying for Harbour Porpoises is a WMO Sea State (=Beaufort Force 2 conditions), which is due to the smaller size of the animal and the height of its pectoral fin out of the water compared to other cetacsa. DCC mmendo that medial and mittgation measures for hing of Harbour Porpoisw should be,& at WMO Sea Stab 2 (=Beaufort Fom 2 conditions). Beason; To ensure eff~tivo~ess~ofmonibting measures. I I I' Common and Grey Seals Current matine mammal mitigation for the proposed developmt ge and NIS, 5.7.2, page 274-275) sWsthat visual soanning for marine mammal and grey seats) wlll only be effective (1) during dayright hwrs and (2) in good visi or more beyond the limits ~fihassigned Monitored ZMe, whib (3) sea mndittons nkn'ng by MMOs are WMO Sea State 4 (=Beawiort Force 4 ~~nditjuns)or Ies WS guidelines (NPWS 2014) state that dekctim improves mrtsiderably b~low 3 {rd3wufat Fam 3 conditions). Contlitjans rewmmsnded to ABP: KCrecommends that remedial and mi8g9tlan measures brvhual common and grey mals should be set aat WMO Sea State 3 (*ufart Fom 3 wnditfons). Rwswn: To ensure ~Wvenessof rnmaring. measures. 1 I 7.5 Avian 8Iodhrersky Black Gu tilemat Whlle the ElAR staters that Black guilemot (Cepphur grille) have ieturhd by ehngABR works, Ft also states that the numbers of Black GuEllsmat in Dub[ declined g?er the perid 2013-2Oj 8 (page 7-83,IBE1429/EIAR (from 82 in 2013 ta 48 14291EIAR Black guillsmot nesting withln the develapmsriit ammake up 14% of of the birds in the locality and these prqmsed development wrks mqulre that guilkm ng sites ape replaced by man-made nesting boxes, It is un&at whether birds neJng dose to pile drlving In are less expsed to noise and vibration compand to sites in man-made wp~~sedto wise and vibdons. While the proposed pdsd d May help to mltlgata dktultran~to €he sped&, be conducted b ensure there i~ no below, Arctic and.Common TBrn On page 8 of the Elm Nan-TwRnfed Summary (IB MIn Part Masterplan 2040 (Figure 3) shows the relocatton df a tern wlony the Palbeg Port Lands. As the Poolbag area is also Wng consided for futu mlomted tern aolsny pantoan Mil haw to be moved of the rel- pontoon should, therefore, be con from the site of construction works to reduce a as the terns arrjve inW the Duhlin Bay area from July and inb August, pontoons should be in posit and September. Clarification h r&qhPtred as nt has corlducbd an analysis of the apttmum lmtion(s) fwdtfng 0 ermanmt bcatbns nt subject to further changes as part af the Master g2oodW.onn recommended. to ABP: DCC recornmends that the Applicant pr~vidsclsrification on the sltfng of the pontoons and whether or not these are pmpsed on I permanent bads. Reason: To ensure long-term mns@watToni~?W&ts are prom les designated under the EU Birds DirMM. C ditbns remmonded to ABP: 8Cremwnde that the Applicant provide darifloation thaf W undisturbed bhenthe months d March arid September, Reason: To ensum long-term conservation interests are protected for species dedgnated under the EU Birds Directive. Benthlc Impacts The proposal will result in the permanent loss of benthii habitat of square metres at 011 Berth Basin 4. As this site is interconnected with the tiffey estuarine habltats and should be viewed as one emsystem habitat in accordance with European Commission guidance (EC 201 I),the applicant should be required to provjde new hnthic habitat within the Port lands to offset this loss and provide fishery enhancement measures for MP2 project to offset loss of benthic hab'ht within Oil Berth 4 basin with an equivalent area of habitat. The Oil Berth 4 basin pontoon - steel frame has a base floor area of 198m2 (NIS. p. 34). The void between the existing Oil Berth 3 and a proposed new sheet pile wall will also be filled with engineered fill material. The quantity of RII material required is approximately 145.000m3. [NIS p. 118). Inland Fisheries Inland has also raised during consultation on the proposal the marked long-term decline in number of salmon migrating through inner Liffey channel (514) and the importance of maintaining the benthic community for protection of fishery interests (5-.14) and also the need to create rough surfaces to encourage marine growth (5-15). In this regard, there are technical solutions, such as specially designed precast concrete tiles, being trialled by UCD, UCC and #veral British universities through the Ecostrudure project, which the Applicant Is already involved. The proposed development should incorporate best available technology' in accbrdance with the EC's guidanoe (EC 2011). It is noted that the Applicant has aanfinned a willingness to provide such measures In response to the IFl's request DCC Parks and Landscape Services made a similar mquest independently during the consultation meeting of September 2018 (5-12). DCC requests that the Applicant is to provide an area equivalent to that whlch is proposed to be permanently infilled at Oil Berth 4 basin and the void at Oil Berth 3 of newly-constructed marine habitat using best availabie technology by way of a design of artificial surfaces to be agreed with the NPWS, IF1 and OCC Parks and Landscape Senrioes. Monitoring of the wnstructed marine habitats shall be undertaken by the applicant and reported as part of the Environmental Management Plan and the outcomes shall be made available by publication using open access methods to allow dissemination for use at other sites in Ireland. Reasq~;To offset the permanent loss d benthic habitats and provide fishery enhancement for species protected under the EU Habitats Directive, in accordance with AMa10. Soils and Geology (Chapter 8) OCC has consistently ralsed concerns about soils contamination with Dublin Port on planning applications including: Dublln Port Gateway, ABR Project, Berth 47A, and also regarding the current application. DCC was a partner with the GSI in the SURGE project in 2010-2012 and is well aware of the levels of contamination in Dublin City, including Dublin Port, from that comprehensive study. The findings of SURGE were Included in the previous City Development Plan and its accompanying SEA report (REF). DCC will continue to ensure that these impacts are assessed in relabon to this historic contamination, which the applicant has stated is widespread and is part of the baseline for both surface and groundwaters from the surveys undertaken by them(E1AR 8.4.8)). It would be useful if the applicant were able to put the Soils and Geology Into context more fully. as the GSI has done. For example, it would be important in tens of assessment to note for each chemical tested if there are gqanic or anthropogenic causes for the levels, if these are atypical for Dublin's coastline, if they are typical of ports or if there are known causes due to industrial site history to explain the levels. The SURGE report provides an account d historic causes for several of these at Dublin PoR Section 8.4.8.1 states that 24 no. soil samples were sent for chemical analysis for a range of elements and compounds. This included Beryllium. However, there are no results reported for these tesk in the EIAR. The GS1 SURGE project report (2012) states that 'Beryllium concentrations are elevated {above the 90th percentile concentration for Be) in the heavy indusby zone in the Dublin port area. Since soils in this area are composed of made ground, it is likely that Be levels observed are due to anthropogenic contamination. Possible sources of anthropogenic Be in made ground in the docklands area include coal and oil burning, coal storage, coal fly ash disposal and industrial activity ... Exposure b high levels of Be usually occurs In association with industries wwhich prmsBa or hazardwswaste sites (ATSDR, 2002). Health e%& associated with inhaling high levels of Be lung disease and lung cancer (ATSDR, 2002). The general public is not levels of Be (ATSDR, 2002). Most Be in soil does not dissolve in water and soluble forms of Be pose a greater risk to human accumulate in the food chain" [GSI 2012). Conditions recommended to ABP: DCC requests clarification on the results of the analysis for Beryllium.'1 I Reason: To assess the risk to human health and the environment.! I I The volume of marine sediments proposed for dredging as 424,844 m3. A sediment chemistry sampling and analy were not contaminated (Elm 485). Sediment Cell Mainte proposed for coarser materials and is considered to be a sustainable solution. Dis posed for finer materials. The Marine Institute has been consulted and it is stated objection to disposal at Burford of this marine sediment as they determine that no biolog likely for the disposal site. The proposed disposal site (refer to Figure 4.2) Is located withi to Dalkey Island SAC. (p. 123) and muld be considered to be an alteration to of marine sediment to Burford Bank poses potential risks to the Natura 2000 sites on Du er monitoring issues. The €PA states (5-13) that the examination of alternative R should examine alternative uses of the dredged material, not only dumpi g to an EPNCIT review, Ireland has a low rate of re-use of dredge material in i rticularty of fine material, and a range of potential reuse options is examined in this rev in agreement with the EPA and requests this to be included in the fine sediments. Dublin Port has shown a commitment to sustaina Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere and can demonstrate pote for reuse in other ports in Ireland and intematlonally in this regard. Conditions recommended to ABP: I I, DCC requests that the ElAR include an analysis of alternative dredged marine sediment, including finer materials, as an alternative to disposal at sea as Reason: In the interests of sustainable development and in accordant wi $'the EU Habitats Directive. Landscape & bual lmpact Assessment A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been prepared In general impacts are expected to be low due to the existing landscape and visual The LWA 1s found to be acceptable, however in terms of recommended that a landscapelgreening plan should be should be conditioned subject to approval of the application. Conditions recommended to ABP: Development shall not commence until a Landscape Architect cornprlslng full details of the size, of all external ground surfaces buildings, has been submitted to and implemented in the first planting development, and any planting which dies or is in the following season (The Landscape Plan Development and Taking in Charge, copies of Setvices Division). Reason: in the interests of amenity, ecology and sustainable develop ent 1I Alterations to Exkttng Greenway Proposal The proposal maw new provision of an interpretative heritage installation within a heritage zone amending the end of the permitted Port Greenway (Reg. Ref. 3084M6). 1he proposed installation, the 'Market, to incorporate features which will inform visitors of the port's Industrial, maritime and ecokglcal heritage is acceptable to DCC, DCC recommends that DPC engage with the UNESCO Biosphere's Conservation and Research Group with regard to the embgkal content of this important installation as a means to gain expertis3 and input from the wider community of environmental organisations of Dublin Bay's natural heritage. The Applicant proposes to restrict public access to the section of the Greenway abng the Tolka Estuary under the Birds and Marine Ecology Management Plan. This is discussed below. Marine Mammal Management Plan The proposed measures included in Appendix 194 Draft Marine Mammal Management Plan are cansldered to be acceptable, Wiregard to the reporting procedures proposed, it is essential that DCC, as landowner of North Bull Island and as the local authority for North Bull Island SPA, has access to the data from this monitoring programme (including the records obtained under ABR), not just the annual summary reports. This is to facilitate the revisions of the City Biodiversity Aclion Plan, the City Development Plan, periodic review reporting to UNESCO and to permit future analyses of biodiversity and climate change impacts in Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere. Conditions recommended to ABP: That a Marine Mammal Manasrement Plan be imolemented as DrQDOSed in Amendix 19-6 and that all monitoring and spatial data bssubmitted to ~ublinCity ~ouncil'in&agreed format. Reason: in the interests of bbdivetsity management, climate change adaptation and sustainable development Blrds and Marlns Ecology Management Plan The proposed measures included in Appendix 19-7 Draft Birds and Marine Ewlogy Management Plan are considered to be acceptable. With regard to the reporting procedures proposed, it is essential that DCC has access to the data from this monitoring programme (including the records obtained under ABR), not just the annual summary reports. This is to facilitate the revisions of the Ci Biodiversity Action Plan, the City Development Plan, perlodk review reporting to UNESCO and to permit future analyses of bfodiversity and climate change impacts in Dublin Bay UNESCO Biosphere. Conditions recommended to ARP; That a Birds and Marine Ecology Management Plan be implemented as proposed in Appendix 19-7 and that all monitoring and spatial data be submitted to Dublin City Council in an agreed format. Reason; in the interests of biodiversity management, climate change adaptation and sustainable development. With regard to the proposal to close the gates at the Greenway during tern feeding periods, this is acceptable to DCC for biodiversity reasons. However, the timing of, and reasons for, the gate closure need to be clearly communjcated to the public by DPC. Public health and safety issues may arise in terms of the location and design of clasure points. Condltipns- That specific closure points and design of these are to be agreed with DCC Parks and Landscape Services as part of the Landscape Plan. Reason: in the interest of public health and safety and compliance with the EU Birds Directive. The ElAR states that Black guillemot {Cepphus grille) have not been disturbed by existing ABR works. However, sunreys have revealed that the numbers of Black Guillemot in Dublin Port have declined over the perid 2013-2019, from 82 in 2013 to 48 in 201 9 (Table 7-20, page 7-82, IBE14291EIAR). The proposed development requires the removal of nest sites (in cavity walls or pipes) that will affect 5 nesting pairs, or 14% of the population breeding in Dublin Port (page 7-89, IBE1429IEIAR). Although these nesting sites are being replaced by artificial nesting boxes, and similar boxes have been used by Black guitlemots In the port area since 2016 (page 7-97, section 7.5.6.I, IBEl429/EIAR), there has still been a decline in the population. While the prapased perlod of cessation of piling (March-May) could potentially rnithgate against disturbance to the s 10 May - at this locality (pew. comm. Newton, 2014). The the proposed development area should be conducted to proposed development on breeding success, Sampling sh success rates between Black guillernots that nest in cavity walls or structures. This would provide clearer evidence that mitigation me to this site and rule out the proposed development as mitigation measures are not succeeding, there will be a need to tive management approach and agree with the NPWS and DCC an alternative rnftig to prevent further population decline if possible. The Commission's guidance (EC 201 1) is system-specific dynamics and which are adaptive monitoring programmes should be rapidly in Liffey estuary, why guillemot bre boxes. Adaptive monitoring programmes post-construction stages far a nlns year proj anges are required to mitigation and adapt the programmes in tim any remaining minor scientific uncertainty mitigation or compensatory measures, the meas scheme to monitor the actual impacts and a fm measures to the actual impacts." Conditions recommended to ABP: Monitoring of black guillemot nests should be carried out for the Idu ;of the nesting period and sampling design is to facilitate analysis of breeding success rates by I Reason: To determine if mitjgation strategy proposed is biodiversity by ensuring breeding success. Monitoring programmes must incorporate regular reviews (after for adaptive management and to learn from monitoring results. should be based on those parties involved in the ABR project and the reviews Reasow To ensure mitigation is adequate and to comply with the EUrP abi ts Directive and Aarhus. Cumulative Impacts The Applicant has reviewed the cumulative impacts of several projec con ernhg the relevant Matura 2000 sites. However, the impacts of the various subgrojects under the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan (NTA) should also be considered with regard to poFnti I i cts on protected species and habitats, Public consultation documents have been published y D blin City Council and Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council of draft plans and the routes1ha e b en delineated for the East coast T~II~~yc ~outs. he impacts of these plans should be ndted in t is section, particularly their potential disturbance to winter migratory blrds. That the impacts of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan andit i su sidiary plans be included in the assessment of cumulative impacts. 1i i Reason: To ensure compliance with the EU Birds and Habitats Floods Directive and climate change. Proposal for Community Gain me proposal for Community Gain (Appendix C) Is acceptable in priicip e to DCC Parks and Landscape Services. East Wall is an area of the City where there are deficip pu lic green space and it is a policy of the City Development Plan and also the DCC Parks Strategy ad lressthis through provision of new, accessible public parks and open spaces. R is our understdndi g at the site proposed for the City Farm is to be situated on the Alfie Byrne Road adjacent to e Isti g substation and Irish Rail mainline service, not at Fainriew Park. Falrview Park is a sub-siteY of he orth Bull Island SPA. We request that the applicant provide furlher clarification as to the exailo tio of the proposed City Farm. iiI c: That the Applicant provide slte location map of the proposed site@) for the Community Gain proposals. Reason; To ensure adequate and accessible provishn of public open space in accordance with the City Development Plan and the Dublin City Council Parks Strategy (201 9-2022). .. ndmons rswrnmended to ABP: DCC wursts that the Amlint will contribute at least a sum of 50% of the site value of the Polefield (or sales price achievedj'at the date of the grant of permission to a maximum contribution of Elm towards the provision of public open space in the bcality. Any and all of these sums will be in addition to the current community based initiatives and special projects that Dublin Port Company b undertaking. Reason: Community Gain under Section 37 G (7) of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2606. 3efemnces iuropean Commission (201 1) Guidance on the implementation of the EU nature legislation in estuaries and coastal zones. Brussels: European Commission. -larrington, J. and Smith, G. (2013) Guidance on the beneficial use of dredge material in Ireland. Cork: 31TIEPA qawkins, A (2005). Assessing the impact of plle driving upon fish. UC Davis: Road Ecology Center. 3etrieved from hUps:/leschotarshlp.orglucliteml28n858z1 UFWS. 2014. Guidance to manage the risk to marine mammals from man-made sound sources in rish waters. Malonal Parks and Wildlife Service. 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2, Leslie Moore, City Parks Superintendent Maryann Harris, Senior Executive Parks Superintendent Kieran OINeill, Senior Executive Landscape Architect Lorraine Bull, Biodiversity Offleer t Y I Drainage Dlvision There is no objection to this development, subject to the developer mpl ing with the Greater Dublin Regional Code bf Practice for Drainage Works Version 6.0 (available om .dublinci ie Forms and Downloads). I- The development is to be drained on a completely separate fouI andi urfaP water systems. Appropriate oil water ma1 drains as indicated on the drainage layout The development shall incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems nagement of surface water. Full details of these shall be agreed in writing with Drainage to commencement of construction. Your Ref: ABP-304888-19 Our Ref: SID-2019-DC-10 (Please quote in all related correspondence) 22 November 2019 The Secretary An Bord Pleanála 64 Marlborough Street Dublin 1 D01 V902 Via email to [email protected] Re: Notification to the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended. Proposed Strategic Infrastructure Development (SID): Section 37E application for permission for a period of 15 years for development at Oil Berth 3 and Oil Berth 4, Eastern Oil Jetty, Dublin Port, off Jetty Road and Breakwater Road South, and at Berths 50A, 50N, 50S, 51, 51A, 49, 52, 53 and associated terminal yards, Dublin Port, off Breakwater Road South, Terminal Road South, Alexandra Road Extension, Alexandra Road, Tolka Quay Road and Promenade Road, Dublin 1 and 3. A chara On behalf of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, I refer to correspondence received in connection with the above. Outlined below are heritage-related observations/recommendations of the Department under the stated heading(s). Underwater Archaeology Having reviewed the Archaeological Assessment and other documentation associated with the scheme, the Department has the following comments in relation to the predicted impacts of the proposed scheme on the archaeological heritage of the area. The predicted impact of the proposed scheme upon archaeological heritage and the relevant Mitigation Measures are detailed in the summary of Mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR). It is he Depa men recommendation that the Mitigation Measures detailed are carried out in full. The Department also recommends the following: Aonad na nIarratas ar Fhorbairt, Bóthar an Bhaile Nua, Loch Garman, Y35 AP90 Development Applications Unit, Newtown Road, Wexford, Y35 AP90 [email protected] www.chg.gov.ie The geophysical anomalies documented in the Dublin Port MP2 Archaeo-geophysical Report of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report Appendices (Part 1) should be subject to a dive survey. The dive survey should be carried out by a suitably qualified archaeologist and licensed under the National Monuments Acts 1930-2004. Nature Conservation The Department acknowledges the Further Information provided and has the following observations to make: 1. The Department recommends that all mitigation measures identified in the Natura Impact Statement document prepared by RPS, including in plans and assessments in appendices to the document, are implemented in full. 2. The Department notes the measures outlined in the Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan and the draft Environmental Management Plans in Appendix 5 of the Natura Impact Statement (NIS) document. All of the measures in these draft plans need to be incorporated into the final version of these documents so that they are implemented in full as they form part of the mitigation required for this development. 3. It is noted on page 275 of the NIS and in the Draft Birds and Marine Ecology Management Plan that gates will be used at the site of the Greenway to control the movement of people during periods of greatest low spring tides to avoid disturbance at exposed feeding grounds within the Tolka Estuary. Any grant of permission should ensure that measures to provide for the effective control of these gates at the specified times are in place for the whole operational lifespan of the project. 4. The Department recommends that all mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment Reports prepared by RPS, including in plans and assessments in appendices to the document, are implemented in full. Yo a e e e ed o end f he comm nica ion o hi Depa men De elopmen Applications Unit (DAU) at the following address: The Manager, Development Applications Unit (DAU), Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Newtown Road, Wexford, Y35 AP90 Is mise, le meas Suzanne Nally Development Applications Unit .. 2